Research Offers Clues to Tapping 9 Kinds of Generosity

Lots of Americans don’t give to charity, and, of those who do, many don’t give much.

But what’s to make of those who give in nonmonetary ways, like through volunteering or donating blood?

Such is the complex tangle of giving explored in American Generosity: Who Gives and Why, by Patricia Snell Herzog and Heather Price, a book that is a veritable cocktail of analyses of survey data. The authors are co-investigators for the Science of Generosity effort, a project at the University of Notre Dame.

In addition to survey analyses, the book contains interviews with a dozen people who embody different types of giving.

The authors write that the outlook on generosity depends on what types of giving are considered. For instance, 45 percent of people reported making no financial donations in 2010, which the authors say is “dismal.” But other forms of giving, like volunteering and political action, show a brighter picture of generosity.

The authors measured nine forms of giving, including ones that some may not consider “charitable,” like acting generously toward friends or family, buying pricier sustainable foods, and being an organ donor.

In an interview with The Chronicle, Ms. Herzog discussed how nonprofits might benefit from the book’s data.

The following has been edited for clarity and brevity:

A lot of recent research shows that giving is not necessarily tied to wealth. Where do you think your research stands in that conversation?

There are greater amounts of giving by income but not as a percentage of income, where the story is more complicated. Those in poverty give a very high percentage, especially considering that their expenses are a greater proportion of their income. It dispels that myth that the wealthy give more.

Should charities be concerned that so many Americans give no money?

Yes and no. It depends very much on the structure of the nonprofit, because one of the central findings is that giving levels are quite high if you consider all nine forms of generosity. In fact, nine out of 10 Americans do something out of our nine options.

The main question is: Is the nonprofit drawing on multiple approaches for people to get involved? One of the main mechanisms for how people start to give financially to an organization is by being involved in some other way. One of the practical tips that we see is for an organization to focus on the givers that they do have, especially the volunteers, and see if they can invite them to give financially — even if it’s just a very small amount to start.

There’s a fairly low level of giving among average Americans, but at the same time, there seems to be a great potential for untapped resources.

The book says most Americans are “impulsive” givers. One of the big worries of nonprofit fundraisers is donor retention, which is fairly low on average. Does this present a major challenge to nonprofits?

I absolutely think it does. You probably don’t want to spend a lot of money appealing to your average impulsive giver, because they give at a much lower rate. A great example of what works for that type of giver is the grocery-store checkout-line request, where it costs the organization very little once it is set up. You might get a dollar or two from each of them, but there are a lot of them.

The book says that people who are better educated, attend regular religious services, and are married are more likely to give. Why do you think that is?

Mobility is increasing in the United States. I was just reading that in any state, on average, there’s a one-out-of-two chance that a person you meet in that state is from that state. And the number of moves people make before their first full-time job is rapidly increasing.

So I think the reason that we see that pattern with the educated, religious-service-attending, higher-income folks being higher givers is in part a stability issue. To be connected to an organization, and a regular giver to it, they have to have been in that community long enough to develop that kind of a relationship. A declining proportion of people are in that category. That’s why it’s really important for organizations to think about innovative strategies to connect with people on the web and low-impact ways that people can get involved without that long-term relationship — not just appealing to people in the local community who may or may not be there next year.

The book explores the idea of “giving webs,” how people with generous friends or spouses or who are from generous communities tend to give more. Does this mean that nonprofits should be trying to create a sense of community around giving when they make appeals?

There are all kinds of innovative campaigns, and I’m sure people involved might have a number of different ideas. Having something that identifies someone as a giver — like a pin that donors can wear with the name of the organization — would help you use your planned and habitual givers to signal to impulsive and selective givers that your organization is worthy.

Another thing would be to have a social-media campaign where you say, “Ask five of your friends to donate with you,” or, “Volunteer for this cause together.” Those kinds of methods are very effective. In fact, a lot of the selective and impulsive givers only give when something like that happens.

3 in 4 Americans give $500 or Less to Charity

Note: Data are from 2010.

Source: Science of Generosity Initiative at the University of Notre Dame