1.
1
Giving Circles
and
Democratizing
Philanthropy
Angela M. Eikenberry
School of Public Administration
University of Nebraska at Omaha

2.
2
Social contributions of philanthropy
• Enables donors to use private funds to create
social and political change,
• Locates and supports social innovations,
• Meets the psychic and social needs of
donors, and
• Affirms democratic pluralism as a civic value.

3.
3
Philanthropy’s shortcomings
• Largely non-redistributive and inadequate,
• Fragmented and short-term in focus,
• Maintains elite control; wealthiest have larger
say in social policy, and
• Creates “us vs. them” ethic among citizens.

4.
4
Counter Democratization Trends
• Modernization of Philanthropy
– Professionalization & subordination of volunteer
– Rationalization & bureaucratization lead to reduced
opportunities for direct participation
• Marketization of Philanthropy
– Emphasize individual over collective
– De-politicize social change
– Focus on symptoms rather than root causes
– Donors become consumers

5.
5
Collaborative Giving

6.
6
Questions
Do giving circles:
1. Provide opportunities for democratic participation?
• More/diverse people
• Giving more, in more engaged way
• Meaningful participation
2. Expand who benefits from philanthropy?
• Redistribute resources
• Address problems adequately

7.
7
Giving Circles in the U.S.
1. Donors pool and give
away resources
2. Donors decide where the
resources are given
3. Independent from any
particular charity, typically
4. Educate and engage
members
5. Social/networking

8.
8
Over 600 identified across the U.S. and in many other
countries.

9.
9
chairs
members members members
committees
Small
Group
Formal
Organization
Loose
Network
Types of Giving Circles in the U.S.

10.
10
Questions
Do giving circles:
1. Provide opportunities for democratic
participation?
• More/diverse people
• Giving more, in more engaged way
• Meaningful participation
2. Expand who benefits from philanthropy?
• Redistribute resources
• Address problems adequately

11.
11
Opportunities for democratic participation
Membership
– Diverse professional backgrounds, including
nonprofit professionals
– Experienced and “new” to philanthropy
– Diverse wealth-levels
– Diverse racial/ethnic/identity backgrounds
• African American, Asian, Latino, etc.
• 53% women-only circles
• “Next generation” circles
– Homogenous within groups

12.
12
Opportunities for democratic participation
Giving
• Members give more
– especially if in more than one GC
Total Annual Giving
GC Members in Multiple GCs $13,400
GC Members in One GC $6,834
Control Group $4,945

13.
13
Opportunities for democratic participation
Giving
• Members give to more organizations

14.
14
Opportunities for democratic participation
Giving
• More strategic
I understand
more of where
my money’s
going and what
it’s doing for that
organization.

15.
15
Opportunities for democratic participation
Meaningful participation:
• Opportunities for agenda setting, decision-
making & face-to-face discourse.
• Build capacities of members:
– Education about issues/philanthropy
– Skills as philanthropists/grant makers
– Leadership, administrative opportunities
– Empowerment (esp. for women, loose networks)

16.
16

17.
17
Questions
Do giving circles:
1. Provide opportunities for democratic participation?
• More/diverse people
• Giving more, in more engaged way
• Meaningful participation
2. Expand who benefits from philanthropy?
• Redistribute resources
• Address problems adequately

18.
18
Expand who benefits
Funding Recipients:
• Smaller, grassroots, local organizations
• High-risk & entrepreneurial, well-run with strong
leadership, or mixed portfolio
• Individuals in need or doing good works

19.
19
Expand who benefits

20.
20
Addressing Needs

21.
21
Conclusions
• Internal democracy vs. Democratic outcomes
– Small groups
• Equal participation
– Loose networks
• Empowering/non-bureaucratic and build personal
identification
– Formal organizations
• Most systematic about identifying needs in the community,
educating members, finding funding opportunities, and
enabling members to engage with funding recipients

22.
22
Conclusions
• GCs:
– Provide opportunities for democratic participation
• To some degree address:
– Expanding who benefits from philanthropy
– Short-term & fragmented focus
– Elite decision-making
– “Us vs. them” ethic
• Adequacy in addressing needs questionable

23.
23
Questions?