1. Click to edit Master subtitle style 7/27/10 Effective promotion of legacy giving: A presentation of new research findings and theory Russell James III, J.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor Director of Graduate Studies in Charitable Planning Texas Tech University Russell.James@ttu.edu Presentation at Legacy Promotion Ireland, Dublin, Ireland, 26 July, 2010

2. 7/27/10 Previous studies One time survey Non-response bias if the whole survey was about charitable giving After death distributions Only for taxable estates Rare single county probate studies

3. 7/27/10 Current study Longitudinal Same people asked every two years Distributions After death nearest relatives are asked about final distributions

4. 7/27/10 New Questions Changes Not just who has charitable plans but when do they add and drop them Intentions v. Outcomes Did during life plans result in after death distributions

5. 7/27/10 Details Nationally representative of over 50 population since 1998. Over 20,000 people per survey. In person interviews, some follow up by phone. Started in 1992 Questions within larger Health & Retirement Study Respondents paid

6. 7/27/10 What share of people over 50 in the U.S. have “made provisions for any charities in [their] will or trust?”

7. 7/27/10 U.S. Over 50 Population * Weighted nationally representative 2006 sample

8. 7/27/10 U.S. Over 50 Population * Weighted nationally representative 2006 sample

9. 7/27/10 What share of over-50 charitable donors giving over $500 per year indicate that they have a charitable estate plan?

10. 7/27/10 * Donors giving $500+ per year, weighted nationally representative 2006 sample

11. 7/27/10 Can that be right? Maybe a lot of donors will eventually get around to making a charitable plan? Will donors ever get around to making a charitable plan?

12. 7/27/10 88%-90% of donors ($500+/year) over age 50 will die with no charitable estate plan. Projecting based on age, gender and mortality or tracking actual post-death distributions

13. 7/27/10 You mean 90% of our donors will die without leaving a gift? You mean we could generate 9 times more estate gifts from our current donors?

14. 7/27/10 Among donors ($500+) over 50 with an estate plan, what is the single most significant factor associated with having a charitable estate plan? Age? Education? Wealth? Income?

15. 7/27/10 Among Donors ($500+) with an Estate Plan Family Status % indicating a charitable estate plan No Offspring50.0% Children Only17.1% Grandchildren9.8%

16. 7/27/10 Regression: Compare only otherwise identical people Example: The effect of differences in education among those making the same income, with the same wealth, same family structure, etc.

17. 7/27/10 Likelihood of having a charitable plan (comparing otherwise identical individuals) Graduate degree (v. high school)+4.2 % points Gives $500+ per year to charity+3.1 % points Volunteers regularly+2.0 % points College degree (v. high school)+1.7 % points Has been diagnosed with a stroke+1.7 % points Is ten years older+1.2 % points Has been diagnosed with cancer+0.8 % points Is married (v. unmarried)+0.7 % points Diagnosed with a heart condition+0.4 % points Attends church 1+ times per month+0.2 % points Has $1,000,000 more in assets+0.1 % points Has $100,000 per year more incomenot significant Is male (v. female)not significant Has only children (v. no offspring)-2.8 % points Has grandchildren (v. no offspring)-10.5 % points

18. 7/27/10 Find your estate donor… A makes substantial charitable gifts, volunteers regularly, and has grandchildren B doesn’t give to charity, doesn’t volunteer, and has no children

19. 7/27/10 From an Australian study by Christopher Baker including 1729 wills: “Australian will-makers without surviving children are ten times more likely to make a charitable gift from their estate”

20. 7/27/10 How did giving during life compare with post death transfers? $$$$

21. 7/27/10 Estate giving and annual giving for 6,342 deceased panel members Offspring Last Annual Volunteer Hours Average Annual Giving Average Estate Giving Estate Gift Multiple No Children32.6 (6.6)$3,576$44,849 12.6 Children Only25.4 (7.1)$1,316$6,147 4.7 Grandchildren23.2 (2.1)$1,497$4,320 2.9 Total24.3 (1.8)$1,691$8,582 5.1

22. 7/27/10 When did people drop charitable plans?

23. 7/27/10 Yes! No. What happened here?

24. 7/27/10 Factors that triggered dropping the charitable plan 1. Becoming a grandparent 0.7226* (0.2997) 2. Becoming a parent 0.6111† (0.3200) 3. Stopping current charitable giving 0.1198* (0.0934) 4. A drop in self-rated health 0.0768† (0.0461) Some factors that didn’t seem to matter: Change in income Change in assets Change in marital status *Fixed effects analysis including 1,306 people who reported a charitable plan and later reported no charitable plan. Coefficients show relative magnitude of factors.

25. 7/27/10 When did people add charitable plans?

26. 7/27/10 Factors that triggered adding a new charitable plan Starting to make charitable gifts.1531† (.0882) An improvement in self-reported health.0927* (0.0446) A $100k increase in assets.0061** (.0023 ) One factor dramatically reduced the likelihood that a new charitable plan would be added: The addition of the first grandchild -.4641† (.2732)

27. 7/27/10 Do the estates of people who make charitable estate plans grow differently than the general population?

28. 7/27/10 After making their plan, charitable estate donors grew their estates 50%-100% faster than did others with same initial wealth

29. 7/27/10 Demographics and future projections

30. 7/27/10 The Fall and Rise in Live Births - US

31. 7/27/10 Dramatic increases on the horizon Temporary drop in key demographic population

32. 7/27/10 The fall and rise in live births - UK

33. 7/27/10 Persons alive in the UK, 2008-2030

34. 7/27/10 Ireland population pyramid, 2001 Without the large post-war baby boom, expect less rapid growth in older ages Growth will come primarily due to improved longevity

35. 7/27/10 Projecting future bequest giving Frequency of future bequest gifts Change in population Change in tendency to make bequest gifts

36. 7/27/10 Charitable Estate Planning among US Adults Aged 55-65

37. 7/27/10 Increases in charitable planning are driven by increases in childlessness and education Variable Estimate (s.e.)p-value Estimate (s.e.)p-value Estimate (s.e.)p-value Year0.0138 (0.0032) <.00010.0033 (0.0034) 0.32980.0015 (0.0036) 0.664 Any children -0.6251 (0.0345) <.0001-0.6224 (0.0479) <.0001 Years of Education 0.1412 (0.0048) <.0001…. full set of …. control variables Probit analysis of all respondents age 55-65 in 1996-2006 HRS. Outcome variable is the presence of charitable estate planning. Time trend exists Time trend disappears when including childlessness and education

38. 7/27/10 Charitable estate planning among adults aged 55-65

39. 7/27/10 Basic relationship This suggests that the overall trend of increased charitable estate planning may have been driven, in large part, by changes in childlessness and education. Such a relationship has important implications for predicting charitable estate planning levels in the future.

40. 7/27/10 Upcoming cohorts and childlessness Childlessness among women who will be entering the 55-65 age group over the next decade will be substantially higher than those in the 55-65 age group during 2006 (the year of the latest HRS survey). Women in the 56-61 age group during 2006 reported a childlessness rate of 16.0% in 1990 when they were aged 40-44 (Dye, 2005). In comparison, women in the 40-44 age range in 2004 (i.e., those who will begin entering the 55-65 near retirement age group in 2015) reported a childlessness rate of 19.3% (Dye, 2005).

41. 7/27/10 Similar trends in U.K. Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=369

42. 7/27/10 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/population_trends/birthstats_pt94.pdf

43. 7/27/10 Upcoming cohorts and education Similarly, a college education is much more common among the upcoming cohorts of individuals nearing retirement age than among the current 55-65 group (Stoops, 2004). In 1996, less than 27% of those in the 35-54 age group had at least a bachelor’s degree. By 2007, over 31% of those in the 35-54 age group had at least a bachelor’s degree (Current Population Survey, 2007). Thus, one can expect the upcoming cohorts of individuals nearing retirement to be more educated than individuals currently in the 55- 65 age group.

44. 7/27/10 Big take-aways Don’t just recruit estate givers by giving level, also know your donors without children After making their intention, charitable estate donors grew their estates 50%-100% faster than did others. Future demographics are generally positive based on population, childlessness, and education

45. Click to edit Master subtitle style 7/27/10 New Ideas for legacy promotion from a theoretical framework Applying “The Generosity Code”

46. 7/27/10 Why theory instead of just a list of techniques? Limitations of “war stories” research – So called best practices may just be practices Theory based strategies are more flexible – New techniques can emerge as circumstances change Guides practice even where, as in bequest giving, interim measurement is difficult.

47. 7/27/10 What does a fundraiser do? Bring in money? This description is “true”, but not very informative. Applies to essentially all private sector jobs. What does a Lawyer do? Makes money. What does a grocer do? Makes money. What does an artist do? Makes money. You could bring money to your organization from government contracts, operation of a charitable business, or other means, but it wouldn’t be as a fundraiser.

48. 7/27/10 What does a fundraiser do? A fundraiser …

49. 7/27/10 What does a fundraiser do? A fundraiser … Encourages Generosity

50. 7/27/10 Encouraging generosity An issue of fundamental human significance An independently valuable mission separate from (although complementary to) your organization’s mission

51. 7/27/10 Understanding generosity Giving occurs when the “potential energy” of a gift’s potential value is unlocked by the “catalyst” of a request

52. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) Potential Value of Gift (Potential Energy) Quality of Request (Catalyst) Gift (Energy Released) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x

53. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) I am happy because you were benefitted Empathyi X Change in well-beingi A ct of R ec ei vi n g A ct of Gi vi n g O th er s’ R es p o ns es

54. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) A ct of R ec ei vi n g A ct of Gi vi n g O th er s’ R es p o ns es Self-Identity (Donor as giver) I am happy because I am generous, faithful, concerned, etc. Importance of value and felt adherence to it

55. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) A ct of R ec ei vi n g A ct of Gi vi n g O th er s’ R es p o ns es Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) I am happy because I was the one who benefitted you My actions were the cause of the change that I selected

56. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) A ct of R ec ei vi n g A ct of Gi vi n g O th er s’ R es p o ns es Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) I receive benefits from the recipient or representative charity

57. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) A ct of R ec ei vi n g A ct of Gi vi n g O th er s’ R es p o ns es Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) I receive benefits from others because of my giving

58. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) A ct of R ec ei vi n g A ct of Gi vi n g O th er s’ R es p o ns es Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) I influence others in the way they behave towards others

59. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) A ct of R ec ei vi n g A ct of Gi vi n g O th er s’ R es p o ns es Theoretical background These value channels exists for reasons rooted in social psychology (proximate causes) and natural selection (ultimate causes)

60. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) Ps yc ho lo gic al be ne fit s to do no r M at eri al be ne fit s to si mi lar ot he rs M at eri al be ne fit s to do no r Theoretical background We can rearrange by their value type including both material and psychological value sources

61. 7/27/10 Understanding generosity Giving occurs when the “potential energy” of a gift’s potential value is unlocked by the “catalyst” of a request

62. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) Potential Value of Gift (Potential Energy) Quality of Request (Catalyst) Gift (Energy Released) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x

63. 7/27/10 Definitiveness How clearly is a decision required? Observers Who observes the decision? Definitiveness How clearly is a decision required? Observers Who observes the decision?

64. 7/27/10 Quality of a request: Definitiveness Requires a definite “no” Indefinitely deferrable response General support concept General issue awareness Specific request Definitiveness: The degree to which a request demands a definitive “yes” or “no” The enemy isn’t “no”, it is “no response” General requestNo request

65. 7/27/10 Quality of a request: Definitiveness Requires a definite “no” Indefinitely deferrable response General support concept General issue awareness Specific request General requestNo request “100,000 children have died in West Africa’s current food crisis.”

66. 7/27/10 Quality of a request: Definitiveness Requires a definite “no” Indefinitely deferrable response General support concept General issue awareness Specific request General requestNo request “100,000 children have died in West Africa’s current food crisis. Please help one of the relief agencies if you can.”

67. 7/27/10 Quality of a request: Definitiveness Requires a definite “no” Indefinitely deferrable response General support concept General issue awareness Specific request General requestNo request “Please give £50 to Oxfam to support relief efforts for children caught in West Africa’s current food crisis.”

68. 7/27/10 Quality of a request: Definitiveness Requires a definite “no” Indefinitely deferrable response General support concept General issue awareness Specific request General requestNo request “We are sending an office gift to Oxfam on Friday. Put in whatever you like and I will stop by to pick up your envelope in the morning.”

69. 7/27/10 Quality of a request: Observers 1. Perceived likelihood of observance 2. Observer’s social significance and level of commitment to beneficiaries Observation of a decision point adds a social cost to saying “no” and a social benefit to saying “yes” based upon:

70. 7/27/10 Office beverages available with payment on an “honor” system. Picture above payment instructions rotated weekly. Payments were higher when picture of eyes was posted. M. Bateson, D. Nettle & G. Roberts (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real- world setting. Biology Letters 2, 412–414.

71. 7/27/10 AB Two groups with two computer backgrounds. Each person receives $10. Computer question: Do you want to share any of it with another (anonymous) participant? K. J. Haley (UCLA), D.M.T. Fessler (UCLA). 2005. Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 245–256

72. 7/27/10 K. J. Haley (UCLA), D.M.T. Fessler (UCLA). 2005. Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 245–256

73. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) Potential Value of Gift (Potential Energy) Quality of Request (Catalyst) Gift (Energy Released) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Applications to legacy giving

74. 7/27/10 Unfortunate reality of legacy giving “74% of the UK population support charities and when asked, 35% of people say they'd happily leave a gift in their will once family and friends had been provided for. The problem is only 7% actually do.” From www.rememberacharity.org

75. 7/27/10 * Donors giving $500+ per year, weighted nationally representative 2006 sample

76. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x So, why is legacy giving so low? What is missing?

77. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x People may not consider charity during document creation (practice of advisors and mistiming of communications from charity).

78. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Will drafting and legacy planning is easy to postpone (avoid facing mortality).

79. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Will drafting is not public, and not an acceptable forum for peer observation.

80. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Most legacy giving benefits can only be anticipated, not actually experienced.

81. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Reciprocity or social exchange is limited. Prior to the gift, the intention is revocable. After the gift, the donor is gone.

82. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Charitable bequests may be viewed as competitive with transfers to offspring

83. 7/27/10 What strategies within this framework might improve participation in charitable bequest making?

84. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Spend more efforts with those donors who do not have offspring (and thus lower competing interdependent utility).

85. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Promote self-identify of the planned legacy donor as a current identity of social worth.

86. 7/27/10 Identify an important value. Associate current planned giving status with that value. Create experienced gift value today, rather than only anticipated post-mortem value. [Legacy club] members have a love for animals that lasts more than a lifetime. Become a [legacy club] member today.

87. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Death creates a natural self-efficacy void. Emphasize giving opportunities with permanence.

88. 7/27/10 Self-efficacy in legacy gifts With death we “disappear”, a serious imposition on self-efficacy. – The desire to overcome this is natural. – Humankind develops memorials emphasizing permanence.

89. 7/27/10 Self-efficacy in legacy gifts Legacy giving can also help fulfill the desire for permanence. But may depend on how the charity will use the gift. Logo from http://www.rememberacharity.org.uk

90. 7/27/10 Self-efficacy in legacy gifts It is easier for the wealthy to imagine charitable gifts with permanent impact. Buildings, large charitable foundations, parks, art Consider developing permanent giving opportunities for mid-level donors. Named giving opportunities limited to legacy donors (so as not to pull from current giving) Permanent memorial trusts for legacy donors only Scholarships, lectureships, sponsor a child, sponsor a rescued pet, annual performances, etc.

91. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Develop small permanent giving opportunities exclusively for legacy gifts.

92. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Emphasize data on how quickly inheritances are spent by family members as compared to longevity of a “permanent gift”

93. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Legacy societies to publicly recognize planned donors and create functioning donor communities through social events.

94. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Always reminding so that the option is “top of the mind” whenever planning happens to occur.

95. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Creating planned giving campaign deadlines to interfere with ease of postponement.

96. 7/27/10 A small organization’s two-year campaign to reach 100 planned legacies http://www.fcs.uga.edu/alumni/legacies.html

97. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Encourage will making in donor population.

98. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Provide free planning services to donors with high potential.

99. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Create immediate commitment pledge devices with follow up verification.

100. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Targeting advisors to include charitable questions in their document creation process through information and recognition.

101. 7/27/10 Why not recognize the intermediaries? Intermediaries, such as a will drafting lawyer, are essential to the process. Often the simple act of specifically asking about a gift to charity by an advisor is key. A “new” idea?

102. 7/27/10 Magdalen Hospital List of Contributors, 1760 From: Sarah Lloyd, ‘A Person Unknown’? Female supporters of English subscription charities during the long 18th century, Voluntary Action History Society Research Conference, Canterbury, UK, July 14-16, 2010

103. 7/27/10 Recognizing intermediaries Friends of charity solicitors society Sponsoring free CPD (continuing professional development) charitable planning related education opportunities – Advertising those who have completed the CPD program. Publishing recognition of active solicitors authoring charitable wills probated in most recent 6 months in particular county, town. – Shows frequency of professional activity.

104. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x Consider legacy arrangements that involve children in charitable decisions.

105. 7/27/10 Public notice of founding of the Bible Society (1804) and listing of donors The Morning Post (London, England), Monday, March 19, 1804; pg. [1]; Issue 11061. 19th Century British Library Newspapers: Part II.

106. 7/27/10 Executors become voting Governors for life

107. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x The framework doesn’t provide automatic answers, but may help generate ideas about value creation and realization in your context.

108. 7/27/10 Reciprocity (Response of Recipient to Donor) Interdependent Utility (Recipient’s experience) Self-Identity (Donor as giver) Social Exchange (Response of Others to Donor) Cultural Norms (Response of Others to Others) Self-Efficacy (Donor as change agent) Potential Value of Gift (Potential Energy) Quality of Request (Catalyst) Gift (Energy Released) 1. Definitiveness 2. Observers = x

109. 7/27/10 Thanks for listening These slides (and others) are posted at www.slideshare.net/Generosity