Understanding giving. Sharing knowledge. CGAP Five-year review 2008-2013

Understanding giving.
Sharing knowledge.
CGAP Five-year review
2008-2013

cgap.org.uk

Designed by Fabrik www.fabrikbrands.com

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

About CGAP

Sources

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
• harity and social redistribution
c
• he institutions of giving.
t
The Centre has done this by:
• onducting and promoting highc
quality research on giving and
philanthropy
• ostering creative knowledge
f
exchange between academic and
practice communities
• eveloping and disseminating the
d
evidence base to inform policy and
practice

Sources
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? Crosssectional 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.

Contents
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).

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 researchers
and Advisory Group

34

CGAP publications

36

Structure and funding

38

Sources

39

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

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

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 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 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 23: CGAP (2012) Philanthropy and a better
society. CGAP.
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.

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

• uilding the field through training new
b
researchers
• ncouraging the development of
e
sector research capacity
• orking internationally and in a multiw
disciplinary way.

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.

02 | CGAP Five-year review 2008-2013

CGAP Five-year review 2008-2013 | 39

Key features

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.

Key features

Universities and institutions

Funders

• qual co-funding from Government
e
and the Economic and Social
Research Council, with further funding
from the voluntary sector
• ain research themes selected by a
m
consultation group drawn from policy,
practice and research communities
• elected through a tendering process
s
to carry out work under these
themes, open to academic and
non-academic partners and peerreviewed by academic and practice
representatives
• n Advisory Group, with membership
a
from Government, the ESRC,
universities, charitable funders and
practitioners
• ust over one-quarter of its budget
j
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


Chairs’ forewords

Foreword by Professor Nicholas Deakin

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.

Chairs’ forewords

Foreword by Professor Arthur Williamson

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.

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.

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.

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

Under CGAP’s umbrella, knowledgesharing, 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.

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.

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



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.

06 | CGAP five year review

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 farreaching 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.”

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:
• ousehold donations have increased
H
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.

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, highnet-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.”

• verage weekly household donations
A
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.
• iving was largely recession proof up
G
to 2008, but may have been affected
by the depth of the current recession.
• haritable giving increasingly
C
depends on elderly donors, who
accounted for 35% of donations in
2008, compared with 25% in 1978.
• onations from the richest 10% of
D
households accounted for 22% in
2003-2008 compared with 16%
in 1978-1982. The top 50% of
households gave 92% of the money
donated.
• he poorest 10% of households
T
donate more as a percentage of their
total spending than the richest 10%
(3.6% versus 1.1%).
• here was a marked rise in donations
T
at the time of the Asian Tsunami
disaster, but donations soon returned
to previous levels.
Source 1



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

Considerable differences exist
between countries and regions

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

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”


Legacy funding poses real
challenges.
Legacy fundraising in health is underdeveloped 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 mid1990s. 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 inflationadjusted 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.

“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.”

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:
• onors’ tastes, preferences and
D
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.
• ersonal and professional
P
backgrounds, which shape donors’
‘philanthropic autobiographies’ and
influence their choice of beneficiaries.
• heir perceptions of how competent
T
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.
• onors’ desire to have a personal
D
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



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:
• orporate philanthropy remains
C
primarily controlled from the top
and is driven by a business case.
• espite apparent devolution of
D
decision-making, the company
expects some alignment with
company objectives.
• taff involvement in selecting
S
charitable beneficiaries can be
rather tokenistic.

• taff do not always take up the offer
S
of participation.
• ecision-making by shop floor staff
D
reflects personal experiences and
preferences.
• he spread of more democratic
T
procedures favours more established
charities and ‘safer’ causes.
• espite selecting serious causes,
D
shop floor staff expect that the
process of supporting charity will be
fun and will enliven their working lives.
• s well as opportunities for lightA
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 demanddriven, 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: intercorporate 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.”


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 lowerrate 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.

“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.

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.”

“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

“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?’



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.

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.

“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:
• he majority (57%) are aged 46-65,
T
with 10% less than 46 and 23% more
than 65.
• 8% are white collar workers,
4
32% blue collar workers and 6%
aristocracy.
• 2% have an undergraduate degree,
5
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.
• ore than half (51%) support
M
education, 37% young people, 21%
science, health and medical, 19%
social welfare and 16% culture and
sports.
• he majority (59%) have a foundation
T
as a formal vehicle for philanthropy.
Sixteen were established before the
year 2000 and the longest running
was established in 1972.
• heir leisure interests include sports
T
(40%), art (22%), politics (22%), culture
(19%) and country pursuits (14%).
Source 13, Source 14

“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.



Initial insights into worldmaking 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.

How entrepreneurs provide
added value.

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.

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.

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.

“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

“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 highnet-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.

Source 17



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.

“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.”

“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.

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.”


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:
• he biggest influence on recent
T
spending decisions was public sector
welfare cuts.
• ore than a half predict less funding
M
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.
• he majority (65%) do not think
T
that a US-style mandatory
payout requirement would benefit
funding levels.

• he influence of the social investment
T
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.
• ndependence remains very
I
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 donorcontrolled 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 placebased 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 leadplayers 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 endowmentbuilding 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

Challenging the boundaries of
research, policy and practice.
Building creative knowledgesharing 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.



CGAP contributes to
Gift Aid debate.

• ne-to-one discussions with key
o
stakeholders

Wellcome consultation
response quotes CGAP.

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.

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

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.

“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:

• oint seminars with the European
j
Association of Philanthropy and
Giving, EAPG (now Philanthropy
Impact)
• ide-ranging material published on
w
the CGAP website and emailed to key
stakeholders
• ational, local and sector media
n
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

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:
• olding a one-day symposium
H
for philanthropy professionals,
researchers and philanthropists on
Contemporary philanthropy and social
renewal: learning from research and
practice (2013).
• eaming up with the TSRC and
T
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).
• rganizing a joint event with Cass
O
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).
• osting a round-table discussion on
H
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).
• resenting a track on Philanthropy,
P
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).


• nviting Hilary Pearson, President
I
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).

Strong media relations give
CGAP a real voice.

• oining forces with the Association
J
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).

This has included:

• osing the question Can the Big
P
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).
• ollaborating and co-leading a
C
‘master class series’ on philanthropy
with Arts and Business Scotland
(ABS), in parallel with the coproduced 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

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

• ppearing on BBC Radio Four,
A
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.
• iscussions on whether people
D
should leave their money to children
or charity on Radio Scotland and The
Alan Titchmarsh Show on ITV.
• riting articles for the charity press,
W
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:
• osting an Autumn 2012 seminar to
H
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.
• olding a round-table discussion
H
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.
• resenting research papers at
P
conferences as far afield as America,
Australia, Italy and Canada.
• eing commissioned by Routledge
B
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.
• diting special issues of leading
E
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


CGAP’s researchers and Advisory Group

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

Researchers
Individual and corporate giving

Charity and social redistribution

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

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

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.

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.


Hub (Communications and
Engagement)

CGAP Team

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

CGAP Researchers’ Awayday

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 Publications

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.
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 academicvoluntary 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 incometax 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
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 ThirdSector 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 metagovernance 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).


Structure and funding

Organogram

Advisory Group
Spoke 3
Cass
Business
School

University of
Edinburgh
Business
School

Funders

Hub
Cass
Business
School

NCVO

Spoke 1
Spoke 2
University
of Kent

University of
Southampton

University of
Strathclyde
Business School

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

21%

29%

Stakeholder
engagement
and dissemination

Individual and business
giving

30%

20%

Institutions of giving

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

Understanding giving. Sharing knowledge. CGAP Five-year review 2008-2013

Understanding giving. Sharing knowledge. CGAP Five-year review 2008-2013

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Understanding giving. Sharing knowledge. CGAP Five-year review 2008-2013

Similaire à Understanding giving. Sharing knowledge. CGAP Five-year review 2008-2013 (20)

Plus de Giving Centre

Plus de Giving Centre (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Understanding giving. Sharing knowledge. CGAP Five-year review 2008-2013