Once I heard about the trouble Bill had reaching out to Oasis (or rather, the trouble Oasis had with e-mailing him back) I knew that I would want to write about this topic for my blog post. No, this isn't going to be a slam on Oasis, their organization, and how motivated they are to potentially receive our donation- because we discussed some of those things in class. But keeping those ideas in mind, I'd like to talk about on why non-profits are more hesitant to work with the younger generation and, in my opinion, why that stigma should be eliminated. Instead, we should be inspiring our generation to be philanthropists.
I used many different blog posts around the web to research why non-profits tend to not take younger donors as seriously as older donors. According to Fundraising Fundametals' "We Need A New Audience" (https://tobinaldrich.wordpress.com/tag/audience-research/), it all comes down to money. Who will give the most money and have a comprehensive knowledge of what they're donating to and how the money will make an impact? Older people. Statistics show that in America, only 12.6% of people who donated were under 35. Their donations were only a mere 12% ($13,200) of the older generations average donations. Ultimately, that's the bottom line for non-profits. In the least greedy way, they want the money that will progress their organization the most and if that means not seeing the potential of younger people (or reluctantly answering a student's e-mail), then so be it. But there is a multitude of reasons why the non-profit sector should embrace the younger generation as donors.
The potential of young philanthropists is profound. The main argument I have as to why non-profits should unleash their potential is because they're the future. "We Need A New Audience" claims that should NOT be a reason, though. They say that instead of replacing older donors with "teenagers", that non-profits should shift their donor base to people who are slightly younger than the old donors, aka "closer to 75 not 25." I think this is dead wrong. The blog post "Harnessing Young Donors' Philanthropy (http://www.cygresearch.com/burksblog/donor-demographic-impact/harnessing-young-donors’-philanthropy-779/) greatly outlines why this is so. The younger generation is full of innovation. Unlike the older generation, 62% of people 35 or younger say that they are going to continue or even increase their giving. Also, they are more likely to utilize online giving which is less costly to operate and thus enables them to have higher gift values. They also are more likely to foster new causes, with 65% of donors under 35 doing so, compared to 19% of donors 65 or older. Also, the younger generation shouldn't be classified as all having smaller gifts, because there are groups like us who have a lot to donate! All in all, the younger generation is not weak, and it's not immature. In fact, it is full of philanthropists who are ready to give.
I hope my blog post leaves people thinking about the mechanics behind why non-profits tend not to rely on younger donors. More importantly, I hope the post made you realize that younger donors can make a great impact on organizations. The statistics should make us young philanthropists feel very frustrated- as seen with our troubles with Oasis. With our grant, we will prove that young philanthropists aren't to be belittled, but to be held at the same standard as any other donor. Also, I'd like to say that I am glad that were giving Oasis a chance, because maybe they don't see us in a negative way, maybe it is true that their lack of response was due to an organizational error (I'm not trying to paint any non-profit in a negative light).
Finally, I'd like to pose a couple of questions:
1. Do young donors give less because they can't give more or because less is what is expected of them?
2. If you ran a non-profit, who would your target donor audience be?
3. Are you pleased that we are giving Oasis the chance to fill out/submit the RFP?
I really enjoy reading you post, it is a nice addition to what we are talking about in class. I reached out the Children's Home and like what you saw in class, it took a few days for them to get back to me. I wrote that I was a student at Binghamton University in my email and I was wondering why if that is they took a while to get back to me.
ReplyDeleteI think it makes sense that nonprofits do their research about what age group to target because that is what will bring their organization the most funds. However, I like the research that you did about the increase of younger donors. While they might not be able to donate as much because they are still in the growing stages of their lives and careers, they most likely donate because they are passionate about the cause and want to see a change made.
I don't think that nonprofits should dismiss the younger populations as a source of donations because like we saw in Christy's tweet last week, even groups of elementary school students are raising thousands of dollars to donate to nonprofits!
If I were the owner of a nonprofit I would make my target audience younger students in elementary schools. In my elementary school we had a fundraiser every year called "Pennies for Patients" were we would just bring in any spare change and donate all the coins to the local children's hospital. This was a super easy way to give back to our community while also feeling good about making a difference!
I think it's very interesting that younger people do not donate, and while I don't necessarily agree with disregarding them as a target audience, I do understand a certain amount of unease associated with us. As a class, we all share some level of similar values surrounding the importance of and choice to prioritize giving.
ReplyDeleteBut many others don't, and I think that goes deeper than just not being established enough economically. I think that a lot of people in their 20's especially don't yet understand how to recognize privilege. That's a little strange to say, but what I mean is that a lot of people do not realize that while they may not be able to separate opportunities to give back from moments of sacrifice.
For example, when the University calls alumni looking for donations, recent graduates typically get offended or immediately decline to give back. Their assumptions frequently range from their being to young to them still paying off their student loans. And that mindset — not being solidly set enough in life to give back — permeates in other opportunities for charity.
The theme seems to be that if you're not 100% comfortable, you're not in a position to give or at least to be asked to give. But that's exactly where people become ignorant to their privilege. The mindset of "not yet" exposes another mindset, or assumption, that improvement is possible down the line. People opt not to give now because they will be more successful later. But the very nature of that upward trajectory means that it is safe to give without any negative impacts from not being "economically stable" yet. The knowledge that somewhere down the line, success or stability is a fairly achievable goal, places individuals in a better place than those in need. Just because one has room for improvement does not mean they cannot help others' lives improve as well.
I totally got off on a tangent here, oops!
Great post! I really enjoyed reading it and relating it back to the class and my own personal experiences as a young philanthropist. I agree with your stance that young philanthropists should not be belittled because there are a plethora of young donors as well as young people who are starting their own non-profit organizations (ex: charity: water, The Malala Fund, TOMS).
ReplyDeleteNot only are young people starting their own non-profits to better the world, but the YUPPIE generation is also making an effort to improve their corporate social impact on society. Recently, I posted a tweet about "How A New Generation of Business Leaders View Philanthropy" and it addresses your point exactly. New business people are addressing issues of how they can invest for impact in both non and for profits, measure results, and shape the existing business around social good. It essentially also overlaps with the topic of Philanthrocapitalism that we discussed in our last class. Young people around the world are using their philanthropic values combined with business tactics to try to raise the most money as strategically as possible. Whether philanthrocapitalism is morally and ethically right is up to your own personal discretion - but I believe that it works in modern philanthropy giving. Another point that you touched on, is the power of social media. Nowadays, donating money to a charity is as simple as a click of a button. For example, I had informed the class that my Greek Council will be fundraising money to donate to charity: water's this week and it was as easy as signing up for our online campaign and tabling in the Marketplace for three days. We have been having great success so far - so it is naive to say that young philanthropists should be disregarded or treated with less respect than an older philanthropists because young philanthropists are just as good - if not better - at raising money!
Jill, I truly enjoyed you post as it encompasses many of my own beliefs and it addresses current issues that we, as a class, are going through. I have found that not just in this instance, but in many cases, the younger generation is overlooked by their elders because we are not seen as equal. Personally, it brings me back to my younger days when I was sitting around the dinner table and all of the adults were discussing something whether it be politics or a science question and not one of them would listen to a word that I was saying because they did not value my input. In this case, organizations do not value the younger generation because of simple math. Most of the time, older people are able to donate more because they have more money to give. However, what the organizations are overlooking is that if they secure a donor at a young age by treating them well and caring about their donation from the start, then that younger person will give to that organization throughout their life. Therefore, the sum of money that the younger person will give over time will be greater than the amount that the old person give. In general, young donors give less because they do not have a high enough income to support themselves and donate a large amount of money. If I ran a nonprofit, I would try to target both the younger generation and the middle generation. I would target adults at first to receive enough money for what I currently want to do with my organization and I would also target the younger generation to ensure donations for the future of my organization. Finally, yes I am pleased that we are giving Oasis another chance because they are a small organization that does not have a fundraising department which is probably why they took longer to get back to us and it is also a reason why it could be a good idea to donate to them. In all, nonprofits should take a much greater interest in the younger generation because we are the future and we are the people who will be looking to donate.
ReplyDeleteJill, I really enjoyed your post. It raises a lot of very philosophical questions. However, I believe many non-profits focus on older generations to give based on a variety of founded beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe first being that younger people simply do not have the means to donate vast sums of money. We are only starting our careers and we have an understandably chaotic idea of the future. We need to save our money in order to afford our expensive, unexpected lifestyle.
The older generation, in many cases, have been saving for years. They have a stable career and a firm idea of where their life is heading. Therefore, they don't really require a safety net of savings. So they are more willing to give that money away to charity.
Usually, it's the younger generation who asks the older generation for money (whether it be us asking our parents for rent, or a young business man asking a panel of investors for capital). It would be a waste of time and effort to target the younger generation for vast sums of money to donate because they simply cannot feasibly acquire enough money to progress their own life and give the surplus away.
If I ran a non-profit I would choose older business people to be my target audience only because that is where the bulk of the money in the world is amassed. The wealth of the world does not lie in the hands of the younger generation.
Hello Jill,
ReplyDeleteThank you for offering different research showcasing on several generation’s donating patterns. In regards to your first question, I believe young donors like us are not in the best position to give since we do not have a stable income yet. However, this is not to say, we do not donate our small savings or part-time jobs to organizations, but it is probably not a consistent donation to improve social issues. Most students would not have been able to donate a thousands of dollars until we fully work, for the exception of these seminar courses. This article (http://www.bljacksonassociates.com/#!Charities-Learn-How-to-Raise-Money-from-Young-People/wkrvj/5683f8c20cf20a60e3ae9cf9) shows how the millennials are more eager to donate their time instead and learn about an organization before they donate their money. It also highlighted the study that millennials are more likely to research before they donate versus an elder. This finding made me curious about the following question: is the new generations being smarter about their money compare to the earlier generations?
On a second note, I will like to focus this part on your last question because it was our class discussion of Oasis that inspired you to write this post and I want to share with you what I think. I am happy that the class decided to give Oasis a chance to submit their RFP. Although we have not been able to receive a proposal yet, I believe it is reasonable to see what they have to say because our class did choose them because of their mission and programs online. Having the ability to hear an organization from the leaders in the organization is not a common event and we can take this chance to learn more about Binghamton’s community. The only downside like we discussed in class, was the lack of professionalism that occurred between our communications with them. But I would like to give Oasis the benefit of the doubt that something came up or they just needed more time to finalize a proposal. Overall, I believe the problem is the lack of help in their administrative department. Hopefully we can find out in their proposal! Once again, thank you for a great post!
Jill, really interesting post and perspective. It really helped me to think about how donors are prioritized. On your questions, I think the answers are more complex than yes or no. For the first, young donors most likely give less because they only have so much. Meaning, young people generally do not have high paying jobs and have numerous expenses (education, loans, rent, etc.) that they did not have when they were in the care of their parents. However, what we do not have in financial capital to donate, young people, and specifically milennials, have passion and excitement to give. We tend to be creative thinkers and hard workers who want to see the world become a better place. Many of us spend time volunteering or advocating for issues we care about, especially on social media. This leads me to your second question. If I ran a non-profit, my target financial donor audience would likely be people who are older, financially established, and be able to donate more. But that does not mean that I would ignore young people. I would target young people to ask them to donate their time, ideas, and social media presence to raise awareness about my non-profit and the work we were doing. Getting young people to donate could be as simple as a social media challenge (ie: like the ice bucket challenge from a few years ago). But primarily, I would expect young people to be more able to donate resources other than money. We are a special case of young people having a significant sum of money available to us to donate. Therefore, I would not count on situations like these to be common. On the third question, I am very pleased that we are still giving Oasis the chance to fill out and submit the RFP. They are a small organization that has only so many resources in order to function. An administrative issue can be difficult to correct when you have a small staff to be able to execute administrative tasks. Additionally, we only gave them a deadline to submit the RFP, not a deadline to respond to an email.
ReplyDelete