Women in Philanthropy: Will they change the direction of philanthropy? Is their approach to philanthropy different from that of men?

Please enjoy our second post from the Chair and Executive Director of NYU's George H. Heyman, Jr. Center for Philanthropy and Fundraising!

One of the most talked about aspects of philanthropy today is the increasing importance of women in philanthropy – as fundraisers, foundation executives and as donors.  The latter are of special interest today, as women now own 51% of the country’s wealth and 65% of the stock traded on the stock exchange every day.  They also own 6.2 million businesses; they have high powered jobs and high salaries in corporate America and are expected to inherit billions of dollars in the next five decades.

From the time our country was formed, women have always been involved in philanthropy.  The first scholarship in America was given to Harvard by a woman, Lady Moulson, in 1641.  Throughout our history women have given generously of their time and money to help “the poor and the orphans;” to establish women’s colleges; to support education, the arts, churches, medicine and scores of social programs.  The difference today is that the number of women involved in philanthropy and the extent of their wealth has increased dramatically.  And while the women in the past generally were shy about publicly announcing their gifts (as a concern with money was not ladylike), that is hardly the mantra of today’s woman.

In short, the gender gap in philanthropy in giving money, publicizing such gifts, and in exerting the power that money provides, is closing.  Indeed, in some cases it may have already closed.
Yes, there are still more men sitting on the boards of prestigious non-profits.  Yes, more men are still giving larger gifts than women of comparable wealth.  And yes, many women are still not as knowledgeable as men on the use of tax benefits in the design and formation of large gifts.  But here, too, the scene is changing.  More women now sit on boards; the size of their gifts is increasing; and many have financial acumen – certainly those who are working and earning their own money.

The big questions today are: how will the increase in women’s giving affect philanthropy?  Do women give differently than men?  Are they more concerned with social issues?  Are they more emotionally involved in the organizations and projects they support?  Are the recipients of their gifts different than the non-profits that are supported by male donors?  Research in this field is still in its early stages and the results are often conflicting.  A recent study says:  “Indeed, much of what has been published in the last decade – research as well as journalism – misinterprets the scant survey data available, recycles stereotypes, and generalizes inappropriately from anecdotes and case studies.”  I share those concerns.

Keeping that in mind, it is interesting to note that most of the books and articles that have recently been published about women’s philanthropy take the position that women bring a voice in philanthropy that is different than their male counterparts; that women want change and creativity in philanthropy; they want to emotionally connect to the organizations they support; they want new solutions to old problems; they want to be involved before they make their gifts, and they give to different organizations than men.

I do not agree with these conclusions.  While, obviously, there are differences between men and women, I do not believe these differences play out in any significant fashion in philanthropy.  I have found that male donors also want to make change; they want creative and new solutions to problems; they want to give to innovative and cutting edge programs; they want to be involved in the projects they support; and many are emotionally committed to the causes to which they make their gifts, and both groups give largely to education, medicine, religious institutions, the arts and social programs.  Women’s funds, however, do restrict their gifts to women’s and children’s causes.  But these funds, by and large, represent only a small portion of philanthropy gifts.

Indeed, the new “young philanthropists” in all the articles being written about them – many of whom are men – make it very clear that they insist on being part of the projects they support.  They want to know how their money is spent; they want to use business methods to evaluate the effectiveness of their giving; and they want to support innovative ideas – not simply the status quo.  Many of their projects and programs are aimed at “improving the world,” providing food for the hungry, medicine for the sick, homes for the homeless and myriad projects that they hope will provide a safety net for the underprivileged.  These projects represent the donors’ deep social concerns.  I repeat: there are as many men in these programs as there are women.

One final note, keep in mind that the election of women as heads of government – Indira Gandhi in India, Golda Meir in Israel and Margaret Thatcher in England - in no way added a warmer, more emotional or human attitude toward social problems or war.  Indeed, the opposite could be said of each of them.  This merely underscores my belief that gender does not necessarily play a definitive role in changing perspectives or priorities in government, business or the non-profits.

Comments

[Alisha Fernandez]

While I certainly agree with the author that there should be equal opportunity when it comes to philanthropic donations, and that women don't have the monopoly on altruism, I must emphatically disagree that gender does not have a role in changing perspectives or priorities. Women leaders who attain extremely high levels of power - be it in a company, nonprofit, or government office - will have to had done so playing by the "men's" rules, unless they have (in rare situations) been surrounded by other women leaders.

I believe that Ms. Levine confuses "gender" with "sex" - a female and a male can both be competent philanthropists with similar goals and support similar issues. But in philanthropy, like anything else, the rules have been shaped in a way that value certain gendered characteristics - some more highly than others. I've found that philanthropy can be more open to some of the characteristics more typically "gendered" as female - such as altruism, emotion, etc. - but the values of philanthropy are gendered, nonetheless. Just like they are in every other sector. Anyone who's sat in on a meeting of executives from a Fortune 500 company will tell you that even though you may see the occasional female face it that room, it's still very much an environment dominated by men.

[Roseann Fitzgerald]

I agree with Ms. Levine's piece, and have observed that the gender gap is indeed closing at my alma mater, the College of the Holy Cross where I work in the field of prospect research. Philanthropic decisions by married and partnered couples are more often shared decisions, and both men and women want to see how their gifts might have helped the College. Also, its important to note that the most engaged alumni (likely to give) were probably active in student leadership roles. Cultivate those student leaders and you will have a new generation of philanthropists supporting your organization. For instance, at Holy Cross, two slots on the College's Board of Trustees are reserved for recent Holy Cross graduates.

[Robin Moll]

I think a discussion of gender issues in philanthropy would be more useful if cross referenced with research about age. I believe data shows that both men and women change their giving patterns over time, but I'm not at all sure that women over 75 are giving as generously as men of that generation. And until the wealth transfer is complete, significant wealth is still in the hands of women who look to the men in their lives to make financial decisions. For example, if 65% of the stock traded on the NY stock exchange is owned by women, how many of those women have delegated investment and disbursement control to men--either male professional advisors or male family members? I agree with Alisha: male gendered qualities still dominate both business and personal financial decision-making. Data about philanthropic patterns of the women and men of the baby-boomer and “Me” generations may be predictive, so let's hope that the next generation of male and female philanthropists is as enlightened and generous as this article suggests.