Why I picked it up: Back when I was a museum director, I remember being told that your budget is your mission. That is, how resources are spent reflect the mission and values of an organization. Thus, what the United States spends via federal expenditures children (in this case) also reflects to some degree on our values as an American society. I picked this up to see if we are moving in a future-oriented direction, investing children … or not.

Given that those over 65 are likely to outnumber minor children by about 2045, I'll be honest and say I am not too hopeful for child welfare. Not that we shouldn't spend on the care of seniors (we should), but more that I don't think the high costs of senior care should come at the expense of children.

What it is: An analysis of federal expenditures on children from 1960 to 2017, and projections to 2028. It is a decent primer for what is actually spent where.

Key findings: Federal spending on children relative to GDP is expected to decline over every major category (health, education, income, security, etc.), and children's share of the budget is projected to drop from 9.4% to 6.9%. This decline is largely due to increased spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (45% of budget, excluding spending on children; it is expected to hit 50% by 2028), and interest payments on the debt (the latter of which will actually exceed spending on children by 2020).

Federal expenditures for children consist primarily of healthcare (Medicaid, CHIP, etc.), tax exemptions and credits to families, nutritional benefits, and income security. Low-income children receive 61% of all federal expenditures for children.

Education receives <10% of federal expenditures for children. States, in the aggregate, spend nearly twice as much on children than the federal government, and the bulk of their expenditures are for education. Indeed, states and local government provide 93% of governmental expenditures on child education. That being said, the 7% spent by the federal government is projected to decline steeply.

Implications for museums: First, and this isn't a museum implication but a societal implication, we as a country have essentially decided that investing in children isn't where we should focus. I find that troubling for many reasons (which you likely share).

This report also portends a troubling future for programs that are deemed more expendable in the budget. As the population ages, and funding becomes tighter as Social Security and Medicare obligations increase (as well as other, new challenges that come with an aging population), any program that is deemed remotely expendable, rightly or wrongly, is likely to face greater scrutiny (at best) and even elimination. I fear the battles over IMLS, NEH, and NEA are only beginning.
​
Additionally, budget constraints will likely ripple out to states and local governments. When federal dollars only reach so far, state and local governments will then be forced to conduct their own assessments and reallocations to make up gaps in childhood care and education, care for seniors, and perhaps for infrastructure and other basic needs. That may mean trouble for line items deemed more expendable, such as state parks, municipal museums, and arts and humanities funding.

Lest I leave you depressed and pessimistic, however, the future doesn't have to mean absolute doom and gloom for museums if museums are proactively part of the solution. That means, when it comes to children, being truly indispensable to child development and welfare. While some well-educated museum-going parents may be prepared to say that now, when push comes to shove I doubt museums will make the cut unless we actually are indispensable to all children, providing measurable, positive impacts on those children and society. Even then, while it would give museums an opportunity compete effectively for funding, my reading of this report indicates funding opportunities will still likely be from private sources.

Let's also consider seniors. As their numbers grow, so will their health and social needs … but increasing evidence shows that cultural engagement (including museums) can help maintain well-being, decreasing healthcare costs. That gives museums an opening to develop positive impacts for individual seniors while also providing pragmatic cost-saving solutions for health spending. If, of course, we are savvy about what we do, measure the impact, and make the case.

Read or skip? The executive summary is excellent. Otherwise, skip, unless you are planning on advocating directly on this issue. The full report really gets into the weeds of budgetary policy (example: how the Budget Control Act of 2011 affected spending on children).

Full citation: "Kids' Share 2018: Report on Federal Expenditures on Children Through 2017 and Future Projections." Urban Institute. July 2018.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: Culture exists in civic ecosystems, and funding is always a critical need. This seemed like something I needed to check out.

What it covers: Focuses on how culture is financed in 16 cities around the world. It examines government support (both direct and indirect, such as tax breaks and incentives) and private funding. Takes into consideration how it varies geographically, and thus culturally. Case studies of the 16 cities also provided (in the United States, New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles).

Read or skip? There were no surprises here. We all already know that government support in places like Paris are at a totally different scale than in the US. While there was more nuance than I knew, it didn't feel crucial for what I do … which rates it a skip for most of us. But if you are deep in the weeds of cultural policy and public financing of culture, then yes, this is a good reference for you.

Full citation:  "World Cities Culture Finance Report 2017." World Cities Culture Forum. May 2017.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: I love the Center for High Impact Philanthropy (CHIP), and what they do. They apply rigorous thinking about how charitable gifts can have the most impact; after all, who wants their gifts wasted? Yet they are not rigid in their thinking about what impact. That is, there is a realization that the world is a complicated place, and that some gifts need to address desperate short-term needs, while others may have long-term consequences that really matter. They are all about what the donor wants to accomplish with a gift.

What is in the report: In a way, the giving guide is a "catalog" for end-of-year giving. It focuses on 14 nonprofits they have identified as making a significant impact in health, poverty, and education, providing a summary of what each nonprofit does, how effective it is, and how you can help the organization. Additionally, they provide a disaster-relief giving guide that I personally found absolutely fascinating and compelling.

Implications for museums: There is one thing that is important to CHIP: evidence of impact. Museums tend to not have the kind of rigorous data that evidence-based donors require. We can't say that a $2 gift can vaccinate a child against measles and rubella. We simply don't work that way.

But that doesn't mean we are not effective or not worthy of funding. Indeed, I can argue that what we do matters greatly. As a field, however, we need to develop our own sets of comprehensive measurements that share how exposing more children and adults to art, history, science, nature, and pretty much everything the world holds makes a difference … and that our methods for engagement are more effective than alternatives.

Read or skip? Philanthropy has changed quite a bit over the past several years, and CHIP is on the forefront of that shift. Thus, directors/CEOs as well as development directors should look at this to see how CHIP, as well as the world of high impact philanthropy, defines and frames effectiveness in terms of philanthropy. How should we reframe our case for support? What evidence do we need to support that case? And how does this enable us to fulfill our missions not only more effectively, but more meaningfully?

Full citation:  "2018 High Impact Giving Guide." The Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania. November 2017.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Quick take: I found this book fascinating. Incredibly useful for the complexity of how generosity happens; the latter 2/3 of the book were fantastic. The first third, however, was riddled with data errors that I suspect were due to poor copy-editing. Finally, the whole thing didn't need to be a book, but a great info-graphic with a supporting 30-page report.

Fortunately, I dug through it, and am giving you the best bits. By the end of the book, the research had "snapped" into a virtual Topography of Giving in my head. I know that sounds weird (and I am weird). Now that I have this topography in my head, however, I'm trying to see how it maps against museum-going and giving to museums. Thus, this is a long, denser review. But persevere! It will still take you far less time than reading the book, and the part about "how and why people give" (below) is worth it.


Why I picked it up: I am curious about why people make financial contributions to charities, and to museums in particular. And also why so few museum members become donors. This book doesn't address museum giving, but I hoped it would help me get into the mind of potential and current members and donors.


Overall premise of survey, brief data notes: Two researchers applied a "sociological perspective" to American giving, based on findings of a national study by the Science of Generosity Initiative at the University of Notre Dame. Research took place in 2010, and it took them six years to release it in this book.

Generosity is defined as "giving good things to others freely and abundantly." This isn't the same as philanthropy, which is narrower. Additionally, they studied nine types of generosity, focusing on three big ones (financial gifts, volunteering, and political action). To simplify this review, I'm only going to focus on financial gifts.

Their methodology looks good. But I found the text contradicting itself multiple times in the first two chapters, in ways that made absolutely no sense. My gut says poor copy-editing, but I ended up not spending considerable time here. That's OK. There's plenty of other philanthropy data out there. Some interesting points, however:​

• 90% of Americans participated in at least one form of generosity in previous year
• 25% volunteered in previous month
• Non-elderly retired are less likely to volunteer than younger adults (which means if working Boomers are not volunteering now, they are unlikely to do so upon retirement)
• 20% participated in some form of political action (above and beyond voting) in previous year (note this was 2010; see my update at The Data Museum)
• Only 10% give financially and volunteer and take political action
• Nearly half (45%) of Americans gave nothing in previous year, while nearly a quarter (23%) gave more than $500

How and why people give (the fantastic bits!): The research went into four factors that drive a gift. I'm presenting them in a different order than the authors, but in the order I think makes more sense to how they are (likely unconsciously) experienced.


1. Personal orientation towards giving.

Does an individual value generosity? Why do an estimated 2/3 of the population value generosity, while a quarter are neutral about it and 10% say they are not generous individuals? What are the individual values that someone has that drives a tendency towards generosity? Five attitudes seemed to drive if someone is generous (or not):

1. Social solidarity - the sense that we are all in this together
2. Collective conscious - we have a shared purpose; also influences size of gift
3. Prosperity outlook - mattered the most - the idea that there is plenty of resources to go around and it isn't a zero-sum game; also influences size of gift
4. Acquisition seeking - wanting material gains - negatively associated
5. Social responsibility - we are all responsible for, and to, each other; also influences size of gift

They examined two more attitudes that do not seem to affect if someone is generous or not:

1. Life purpose - we are here for a reason; does not affect whether they give or not, but does affect size of gift
2. Social trust - of others/strangers

Shockingly (to me), they interviewed some individuals that said things like "it's not a moral obligation [to help others]." To themselves and their families, sure, it is. But not others. Wow.

The frustrating bit here is that while they identified these attitudes, they had no discussion of how these attitudes came to be. Such as external forces that shape, instruct, and model behavior in front of children. Yeah, I'm talking about parents primarily. I suspect they are key in value formation, and I wish the authors had addressed this head on. They didn't.


2. Social affiliations that support/not support personal orientation.

That is, the people around us. How do they inspire and support giving? Six social affiliations, and if they are generous (or at least perceived that way) seem to matter:

1. Parents (learning from and their modeling giving behavior)
2. Spouse or partner
3. Religion
4. Friends
5. Local community
6. National affiliation

Of all these, the last two are weakest, and parents are the strongest. Some additional findings from this factor:
​

• When spouses are not in alignment on generosity, it tends to have a greater negative pull towards non-giving rather than the generous spouse pulling the other towards giving.
• Only 12% had a personal value that generosity was important AND higher than average reinforcement from the above affiliations. That's not much.
• People who don't particularly value generosity can be givers if they are surrounded by social affiliations full of givers. That's a big if.

But, overall, social affiliations serve to strengthen giving; in almost all cases valuing generosity has to come first.

I was, however, somewhat frustrated by this section as the authors don't explore how these social affiliations can drive an individual's development of values, including generosity, in the first place. Instead, they state that these affiliations are independent and do not affect anything else. Honestly, I don't buy it. Maybe during adulthood, but these affiliations certainly shape a child's moral development … an area ripe for study and one ignored in this research.


3. Capacity to give.

To discuss this, the authors borrowed from Maslow, identifying four stages of giving that essentially mirror his hierarchy of needs. They noted, however, that they were looking at how resources and life stage affects how much/how broadly someone who is generous gives, not whether someone actually gave to charity. That is, someone who is generous may only be at the first level, and have no capacity to act on that generosity, but would if they had the resources.

That being said, let's look at those levels, and how capacity to give can help move people up the hierarchy.

• Level 1: Self-sufficiency - taking care of self and not being a burden to others
• Level 2: Relational-parental - taking care of immediate family members so as not to be a burden to others; working to provide opportunities to family members to improve family outcomes (such as working multiple jobs to enable a child to go to college)
• Level 3: Community-religious - helping others in your community through giving locally and through houses of worship (e.g., tithing). Rather concrete giving where the giver sees how it benefits the community; feeling like they are part of community of givers.
• Level 4: Self-actualized giving (they called it professional-lifestyle, but I don't think that is totally accurate) - Broader giving that goes beyond personal communities, and can be more abstract. They also include giving to maintain professional and social standing.​

To distinguish between the last two, it is the difference between sponsoring a child through, say Save the Children, where you see concrete results for one child (community-religious) versus supporting anti-poverty or relief organizations generally, such as Doctors Without Borders. Or, thinking of museums, a museum member could be at the relational-parental level, joining to provide enrichment experiences for children (and my data suggests science centers and children's museums have a lot of these members). But a major donor could fall into the self-actualized giving, perhaps for social standing reasons, but also perhaps inherently valuing the capacity of museums to change lives (I say inherently because museums really lack data on this one).

Note also that having ample resources does not mean generous giving. You have to value generosity as well (and be surrounded by givers helps too). That is, someone can be very wealthy and only take care of themselves and their family. And, similarly, having limited resources doesn't mean someone isn't a self-actualized giver. Limited can still mean having a capacity to give.


4. Their giving process.

Being financially generous isn't a simple ask/give transaction. It's more complicated than that, as every good development director inherently knows. They identified four main types of givers:

1. Planners - 16% of Americans - they think very deliberately about their giving, and set up a systematic way of doing it. Thoughtful. Like to hear results. Museums: they probably are your renewing members and regular donors, but you have to earn their gift every year
2. Habitual - 6% of Americans - they are in the habit of giving, and once they include a specific charity in their giving, it is on auto-pilot. Kind of like another bill that has to be paid, or even tithing. How does a charity get included in their giving? It basically just happens. It is not something that has been given a huge amount of thought. Museums: they probably also are renewing members and regular donors, once you are in their "system." Trick is to get into their system.
3. Selective - 17% of Americans - they are deliberate in their giving in that think through a gift when the opportunity is presented. But they are not systematic about it at all, so they are also inconsistent givers. Museums: this means the pitch has to be right, but they likely have low renewal and recurring rates.
4. Impulsive - 42% of Americans - gifts are spontaneous, on a case-by-case basis, with low rates of recurrence. They will text money to disaster relief, or sponsor a co-worker in a race. Museums: they likely have low rates of membership in a museum. Membership would be a snap judgment at the admission desk, and unlikely to be renewed.
5. Other - 19% of Americans - did not fall neatly into any category, but their behaviors have them more typical of non-givers than givers.

This section is probably the most directly useful to museum fundraising, because if you can figure out what type of giver someone is, you can tailor the pitch. You can even combine tactics that appeal to all four types of givers in one request.


Implications for museums: Just as motivations to visit museums (or not) is a complicated topography of individuals, so is giving. Figuring out how they work together is key, because that enables broadening reach and gifts. And it is something I am in the process of internalizing and applying to my work.

For example, I suspect that many planners also are HNCs (have a high need for cognition) and are intrinsically motivated to learn. The traits of planners as described in this book strike me as similar. And I suspect impulsive givers are less likely to visit museums regularly for similar reasons … and when they do they do so for relational-parental reasons (above), which would be extrinsic. See? Complicated topography.

This leads me to some questions that I'm going to apply to the 2017 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, that I have just pulled from the field. I want to think through the Topography of Giving as I do my analysis, especially given I asked specific questions about philanthropy and motivations for learning (intrinsic vs. extrinsic). I also want to compare it to my mental Topography of Museum-Going.

Then, on top of that, I want to layer it on a Topography of Community Engagement that I have been thinking about as well. This meshes with the values factors considered in the "personal orientation towards giving," and may be rather important.

I'll look at all of that because, well heck, it is a complicated and fascinating world, and it all matters to museums. Stay tuned to The Data Museum over the coming months as I release those results.


Read or skip? For most a skip. My summary and review will be sufficient. But if your read this and light bulbs were lighting up in your head, then go get a copy and you, too, can think obsessively about it. And likely sharpen your development skills.


Full citation: Herzog, Patricia Snell, and Price, Heather E. American Generosity: Who Gives and Why. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: Philanthropy is changing rather dramatically, with more donors expecting evidence of impact before making (or repeating) gifts. One outgrowth of this shift is "impact investing," where a donor isn't a donor at all, but an investor … an investor that expects returns both mission-related and financial.

What you need to know: First, the terminology. The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) defines impact investing as "investments made into companies, organizations, and funds with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return."

An impact investor would thus look at a for-profit company through the exact same lens as a nonprofit. The investment choice would be the entity that can return the most bang for the buck, via both impact and financial returns.

Now, to this particular report, The Center for Effective Philanthropy surveyed 64 CEOs of private US foundations that give at least $10 million/year. Note, this is not a big sample size, so a grain of salt is prudent. (And it only covers foundations; impact investing is on the rise among individuals with high net worth as well.)

That being said, 41% of respondents said their foundations were already practicing some form of impact investing. That seems like a lot, but when it comes to dollars, it is pretty tiny. The median amount going towards impact investing was less than 1% of program/grant budgets.  The median amount of endowment funds being used for impact investing was 2%.

Are you confused now? I had to sort it out as well.  The thing with impact investing is that it is malleable. The returns are both mission-related impact and financial. Thus, a proposal for an impact investment could be categorized as a program/grant expense because of the mission-related impact. Or it could be categorized as part of the endowment because of the financial return. Heck, I suppose some foundations could say their investment is in some part both. 

The future of impact investing appears to be growth. Foundations practicing impact investing reported that it was a relatively new venture for them, but that they were seeking to increase their financial commitment to it. To date, however, the actual financial commitment of foundations to impact investing is small.

Note: the report also explored negative screening, or the practice of reviewing companies that endowment funds are invested in for red flags in conflict with their missions. Such as an environmental organization choosing not to invest in fossil-fuel companies. To be honest, I wasn't terribly interested in this part of the report and only skimmed it.

Implications for museums: Based on this report, this seems to be something to be aware of, and to consider if you have the right project. Impact investing may accelerate dramatically over the next few years … or stabilize at a relatively small portion of foundation allocations. I'll keep monitoring it and share new information going forward.

What concerns me more, however, is the bigger shift towards impact-based philanthropy. That's when foundations and donors expect far greater evidence of impact than museums have historically been prepared to supply (much less compete on). This trend appears to be accelerating much more rapidly, with far more dollars at stake. For museums to respond they need to invest more in measuring and understanding their lifelong impact on individuals and communities, and how they can deliver that impact more effectively than other choices.

Read or skip? Skip. Honestly, this report was difficult to read. While they took pains to define terms, it still ended up a being a bit of a muddle and I had to work to sort out what they meant. This may, in some part, be a reflection of how new impact investing is. But unless this is something you are seriously considering for your museum, skip. I'll keep looking for better resources.

Full citation:  "Investing and Social Impact: Practices of Private Foundations." Research report published by The Center for Effective Philanthropy. Released 2015.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.