If you were to do a “man on the street” survey in the United States asking the question, “Who is the first person that comes to mind when I say the word ‘philanthropist’?” the vast majority would likely respond with Gates, Buffet or Soros, if they’re able come up with anyone at all. If a prominent local landmark is named after a philanthropist, they might come up with a different name, but odds are that person is man too.

If you do a Google search for the word “philanthropist” the first several pages are dominated by male entries; Wikipedia lists no women in its “modern philanthropists” section.

The United States is known for its philanthropic culture and giving spirit. Natural disasters trigger an outpouring of cash donations. The earthquakes in Haiti, for example, resulted in $1.3 billion raised by U.S.-based non-governmental organizations and private charities.

Americans’ generosity is not new. Alexis de Tocqueville does not use the word “philanthropy” in Democracy in America, but some modern scholars interpret Tocqueville’s writing on the American phenomenon of forming “associations” as a comment on our philanthropic spirit. Tocqueville can be forgiven for not including women in his analysis, given the status of women in society at that time. But times have changed.

Recently, there has been some focus on the surging role of high-income women’s rise in philanthropy as witnessed with the success of the Women Moving Millions campaign by the Women’s Funding Network. But focusing on wealthy women alone creates a narrow understanding of women’s philanthropy.

A new study by the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University shows that women, across nearly all income levels, are more likely to give and give more than men after controlling for education, income and other factors that affect giving.

Specifically, in the income level of $23,509 or less, women are 28 percent more likely to give than men; in the income level between $23,509 — $43,500, women are 32 percent more likely to give; in the income level between $43,5000 — $67,532, women are 49 percent more likely to give; in the income level between $67,532 — $103,000, women are 43 percent more likely to give than men; and in the income level of $103,000 and more, women are 26 percent more likely to give than men.

And it’s not only that they are more likely to give, but they give at higher levels — nearly twice as much in many cases (the exception being in the $23,509 — $43,500 income bracket).

Women’s philanthropy has been shaped to a significant extent by women’s shifting economic position and social roles. Income and education in particular are strong predictors of giving. Women have made notable gains in both over the past three decades. More women — 59.9 percent — are in the labor force today. The proportion of working women with a college degree roughly tripled from 1970 to 2008: 36 percent of these women held college degrees in 2008, compared with 11 percent 30 years ago.

Women today are also earning more than ever before, although gender imbalances persist. In 1979, women working full-time earned 62 percent of what men did; in 2008, women’s earnings were 80 percent of men’s. The proportion of wives earning more than their husbands also has grown. In two decades’ time (1987 to 2007), the percentage of working wives who earn more than their working husbands grew by eight percent to a total of 26 percent.

The Women’s Philanthropy Institute report is illuminating, not because it proves women are “better” than men because they tend to give more, but because it disrupts conventional wisdom about what a philanthropist looks like in terms of both gender and income.

The word “philanthropy” literally means “the love of people” and is now colloquially understood as someone who gives money to a cause or charity. Research from the Women’s Philanthropy Institute show that women, in general, score higher on motives of care and empathy. However, further research needs to examine other motivations for giving by gender — particularly across cultures.

In the meantime, nonprofits should take note of the gender gap in giving. They should be deepening their engagement with women in their fundraising efforts, whether it’s a $10 text to the Red Cross, $35 a month to sponsor a sister at Women for Women, or the $1 million check to Citymeals-on-Wheels.

Beyond the conclusion that women should be counted among philanthropists’ ranks, this new report encourages us to go beyond focusing only on the big givers. Americans at all income levels are giving. They should all be proud to call themselves philanthropists. Tocqueville saw it in us and perhaps now we can see it in ourselves — women included.

She notes that philanthropy among women isn’t new and that it is growing. More women are controlling more wealth than ever before and of those in the wealthiest tier of the country, 43% are women.

Belkin notes that women are giving differently than men and how they have given in the past. They are more likely to use their wealth to to social change work – direct and systematic impact.

What’s inspiring about the piece is that in these tough economic times efforts like Women Moving Millions are exceeding funding raising goals (original goal was $150 million and they have exceed their goal by $30 million.)

Highlights on how women and men differ in giving include:

1. Women are less likely to want their name on things and more likely to give as part of drives that include other women.

2. Women tend to spotlight causes for different reasons (such as women’s health, microfinance of business owned by women).

She noted a study by the Center of Philanthropy at Indiana University (I sit on their Women and Philanthropy Institute Council of Advisors)  that describes men’s giving as practical and women’s as emotional and an obligation to help those with less.

Belkin ends the piece alluding to the question, how will increased X-factor philanthropy change the world? The answer is  increased giving by women will change the world in positive way for everyone and it’s up to use to figure out how to engage more women in the movement.

Ms. Brill writes that a Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund survey found that women donors were more likely to be public about their gifts than their male counterparts.

Is it because women need their horns tooted more than men? Most likely not. She notes that women probably want to share to inspire others and “imbue a philanthropic spirit.”

We write in The She Spot that women are twice as likely to pass on information than men and that women like to share things with their communities. They may see announcing their gift as a call to action to friends. If NGOs can help tastefully assist these gift announcements they may see a multiplier effect with the initial gift.

She also noted the importance for women to have their children continue their philanthropic giving. One great way to facilitate this is to provide ways for families to give and get involved. This might be an online video game aimed at school-aged children or making sure that fund-raising/friend-raising events are kid friendly. The Humane Society of the United States does this well through a special kid portal and numerous games.

Finally, she notes that despite the stark economic downturn, groups like the Global Fund for Women and the Women’s Funding Network’s Women Moving Millions Campaign have either broken records or exceed fundraising goals in 2009.  She credits this to the momentum in women’s philanthropy.

June 23, 2009

Foundation giving specifically meant to benefit women and girls has surpassed the rate of overall foundation giving in recent years, which has helped the funds become more influential within philanthropy, a new report from the Foundation Center and the Women’s Funding Network.

Funded in part by the Wallace Foundation, the report, Accelerat ing Change for Women and Girls: The Role of Women’s Funds, found that  between 1990 and 2006 the nation’s private and community foundations increased their giving for activities targeting women and girls by 223 percent — from an estimated $412.1 million to nearly $2.1 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars — compared to an increase in overall giving of 177 percent. Although such growth bodes well for the future, the study noted that foundation giving
targeting women and girls remains a small percentage of founda tions’ overall giving.

Giving by the fifty-five women’s funds analyzed in the report also rose — by an inflation-adjusted 24 percent — between 2004 and 2006, compared to a 14.8 percent increase in overall foundation giving over the same period. In addition, the report found that women’s funds take a comprehensive approach to social change, focusing their giving on human rights, health, and economic empowerment, while foundation giving for women and girls is primarily focused on health.

“This study underscores that investments in women and girls can have big social returns,” said Foundation Center president Bradford K. Smith. “It suggests that women and women’s funds will be increasingly involved in reshaping philanthropy and bringing to the fore important issues like human trafficking and domestic violence that for far too long have been neglected.”

“Philanthropic Giving By and For Women on the Rise, Study Finds.”  Foundation Center Press Release 6/23/09.

Chronicle of Philanthropy

May 19, 2009

By Paula Wasley

Women are taking an increasingly prominent role in determining their household’s charitable giving, with high-income women in particular more likely to seek financial advice and use sophisticated methods when making donations, according to a new study sponsored by Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund.

An online survey of 1,000 adults who had given $1,000 or more to charity in 2007 — half of whom had donated $5,000 or more — found that more women than men act as their household’s primary decision maker in determining how much to donate to charity and which causes to support.

Among participants in the survey — 80 percent of whom were married — the majority of male respondents named their spouse as the primary influencer in charitable-giving decisions, while women in the study were more likely to name a range in influencers that included family members, friends, and co-workers.

Women in the survey also felt more strongly about involving their children in philanthropy. Nearly half of the women in the study (48 percent) strongly agreed that it was important to them that their children continue their tradition of charitable giving, as compared with 39 percent of men in the study.

Upper Tier

While the average household income for participants in the survey was $136,000, the study particularly looked at the giving habits of the 11 percent of respondents who were women with household incomes of at least $150,000.

The survey found that, in comparison to the other respondents, these high-income women were more likely to make public rather than anonymous gifts to charity, to use more complicated financial structures to make gifts, and to seek the guidance of financial advisors when making charitable contributions.

For example, 7 percent of women in this group said they had made gifts of securities to charity, as compared to 4 percent of all respondents, and 3 percent of men of comparable household incomes.

And 16 percent of high-income women said they had used a donor advised fund, charitable remainder trust, or a private foundation to make contributions, as compared with 9 percent of all donors, and 10 percent of high-income men.

High-income women were also more likely than others in the survey to donate to health and science causes and to make additional gifts to charity in response to increasing needs and difficult economic times, the survey found.

The survey’s findings offer insights into how women are likely to shape the future of philanthropy, says Sarah C. Libbey, Fidelity’s president. “Women have always had a hand in their household’s charitable outreach, but that role is evolving as women increasingly create their own wealth and become beneficiaries of wealth transfers because they live longer,” said Ms. Libbey, in a written statement. “We, and other nonprofit organizations, should pay more attention to this very influential group of donors.”

Researchers also grouped respondents into four distinct donor “profiles” based on their giving patterns and attitudes toward philanthropy.

The “mainstream contributor” — which accounted for 52 percent of those in the study — was less likely than others to increase giving in difficult economic times. And, when cutting back on the percentage of the household income contributed to charity, donors in this category tend to give to the same number of causes as in previous years but decrease the size of their gifts. Donors who fell into this category gave an average of $6,842 to charity in 2008.

Nearly a third of the respondents in the study were identified as “empathetic givers” who were more likely to give more in tough economic times and to respond to a cause when personally touched by illness or tragedy. Respondents in this group gave an average of $7,287 in 2008.

About 15 percent of those surveyed were described as “reactive contributors” who, in comparison to the other groups, give a smaller percentage of their household income to charity and are more likely to reduce their donations in difficult economic times. Total donations from individuals in this group averaged $3,687 in 2008.

Just 4 percent of respondents were identified as “pioneering givers.” Donors in this group gave away the highest percentage of their income to charity, were more likely to give to new and lesser-known causes, and more frequently used credit cards or securities to make donations. Individuals in this group gave an average of $7,347 to charity in 2008.