Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24493160
label
Women's Funding Network: Lesbian Donor Research Project [Report]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24493160
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Women's Funding Network: Lesbian Donor Research Project [Report]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Shirley Sagawa's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24493160
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763274-20130124S-040-010-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a4ea67bca532e989
ocrText
WOMEN'S FUNDING NETWORK
Lesbian Donor
Research Project
Final Report
Prepared by
Ordinary Magic
J. Bourge Hathaway
Julia Fitz-Randolph
Paul Ideker
Women's Funding Network
Lesbian Donor
Research Project
Final Report
Prepared by
Ordinary Magic
J. Bourge Hathaway
Julia Fitz-Randolph
Paul Ideker
September 1998
Denver, Colorado
ORDINARY MAGIC
SEPTEMBER 1998
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was made possible by the generous support
of the Women's Funding Network(WFN) and its
funding partner, The Gill Foundation.
Ordinary Magic is grateful for their vision and commitment to expanding
philanthropy for women and girls through the Network
and its member women's funds and colleagues.
Ordinary Magic appreciates the vision, guidance, and support of Women's Funding Network
Executive Director, Carol Mollner. In addition. the project had the able assistance of Tina Joh
and Jennifer Phillips who served as coordinators for the assignment.
Special recognition is due to Katherine Pease, Executive Director and Mickey MacIntyre.
OutGiving Project Director of the Gill Foundation, who were so intrigued by the WFN Donor
Research and Marketing Project's objectives to discover why women do and do not give to
women's funds, that they funded a parallel study to offer insight into the giving patterns and
priorities of lesbians.
A consortium of progressive funds and lesbian and gay community foundations partnered with
WFN on this project. The Lesbian Donor Research Project Advisory Committee consisted of
many volunteers who gave generously of their personal time to enhance its success: co-chairs
Nancy Cunningham/Working Group on Funding Lesbian and Gay Issues and Karen
Zelermyer/Astraea National Lesbian Action Foundation were joined by Lee Badgett/Institute
for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, University of Massachusetts; Mary Ellen
Capek/Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University:
Susan Curry/Philanthrofund Foundation: Joan Garner/National Network of Grantmakers: and
Karen Sauvigné/An Uncommon Legacy Foundation.
The focus group partners contributed countless hours of leadership and administrative support
without which this element of the research would not have been possible. Special thanks to
Susan Curry of Philanthrofund and her Minneapolis/St. Paul colleagues Steve
Newcom/Headwaters Fund and Donna Sherlock/Minnesota Women's Foundation: and Heidi
Burbage of the Ms. Foundation for Women and her New York colleagues Karen Sauvigné/An
Uncommon Legacy Foundation and Karen Zelermyer/Astraea National Lesbian Action
Foundation.
The Ordinary Magic research team members were Julia Fitz-Randolph, J. Bourge Hathaway.
Paul Ideker. Judith Blair and Bill Treadwell.
© 1998 Women's Funding Network. All rights reserved.
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Women's Funding Network (WFN) and its
member funds and may not be reproduced in any form - except for a brief quotation (not to exceed
500 words) in a review or professional work - without written permission from WFN.
i
ORDINARY MAGIC
September 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
I.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
7
Background/Purpose of Project
7
Objectives
7
Research Design
8
II.
METHODOLOGY & SAMPLE
10
III.
KEY FINDINGS
14
IV.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
41
ii
Women's Funding Network Lesbian Donor Research Project
Executive Summary
ORDINARY MAGIC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 1998
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Lesbian Donor Research Project (LDRP) is an extension of the national
Donor Research and Marketing Project (DRMP) that was conducted for the
Women's Funding Network (WFN) from March 1997 through January of
1998. The DRMP was the first national survey of its kind. It combined
qualitative and quantitative approaches specifically conceived and designed to
gain a clearer understanding of why women give and don't give to women's
funds, what common messages resonate with a diverse group of women and to
help focus future efforts by WFN and its member women's funds to build
broader, deeper public understanding of who they are and what they do.
In addition, the final report made recommendations about a proposed public
awareness campaign that could be implemented nationally by WFN or tailored
to the needs and capabilities of member funds within their geographical area.
The overarching goal of WFN's Donor Research and Marketing Project was to
help create an informed language of change that member funds can use to
communicate effectively with their constituency about the vision of the
women's funding movement and hopefully motivate more women to become a
part of its success.
While it was acknowledged from the outset of the DRMP that there had been a
lack of solid market-based research on women in general and their charitable
giving behaviors, even less is known about the giving preferences and priorities
of lesbians. The Gill Foundation recognized that a study of lesbian
philanthropy that built upon the information gained through the DRMP could be
beneficial to lesbian and gay community funds, WFN member funds as well as
other public foundations, and agreed to fund the study. By mirroring¹ the
DRMP, the Lesbian Donor Research Project sought to:
1 Using the basic methods and line of questioning of the DRMP. questions were added that were specifically
relevant to lesbians.
1
ORDINARY MAGIC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 1998
Examine why lesbians give and don't give to women's funds.
Gain insights into the giving preferences and priorities of lesbians, looking
at what may or may not be significant differences in how and why and to
whom lesbians give their time and money.
Contribute to the development of messages that will reach and motivate
potential lesbian donors to become involved in the women's funding
movement and other philanthropic giving.
The Research
The LDRP used the same mix of quantitative and qualitative research
methodologies as the DRMP. The inquiry was designed specifically to expand
and deepen knowledge about why lesbian known donors give to women's
funds, and/or to projects and programs benefiting women and girls, as well as
to develop new information about why other lesbians do not give (or give more)
to support philanthropic efforts benefiting these same groups.
The research for the LDRP included four focus groups held in two different
cities, 21 personal interviews with known lesbian donors to women's funds or
programs and/or known lesbians of influence, a written survey that was sent to
5,000 lesbians identified as non-donors to women's funds throughout the
country, and a written test message survey sent to 153 volunteers who
participated in any of the previous phases of the research.
The Research - Major Conclusions
An analysis of the key findings of the LDRP reveals some interesting
distinctions from, as well as similarities to, the findings of the DRMP. There
are certainly some clear indications of what WFN member funds and other
philanthropic organizations will need to do - and communicate - if they are to
attract and retain lesbian donors.
2
ORDINARY MAGIC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 1998
Lesbians Who Give to Women's Funds
The study participants who reported giving to women's funds have these
characteristics in common:
they clearly understand and believe both in the mission and in the
tangible work of the organization,
they have empathy for the causes, projects or programs a women's
fund supports,
they trust the fund's leadership and judgment about what projects to
support and how to support them,
they understand the strength of collective, targeted giving, i.e., their
dollars are more powerful, their giving more leveraged (rather than
diluted) when combined with others,
they were asked to give.
Lesbians Who Don't Give to Women's Funds
The research also identified four common characteristics shared by lesbians in
the study who do not currently give to a women's fund. They cited these
reasons for not giving to a women's fund:
they were not asked, at least not in a way to which they could relate,
their financial resources are limited or they perceive them to be
limited and they have other priorities for their giving and/or they do
not feel that their small gift would be valued,
they prefer to give directly to a project or program,
the fund soliciting the gift does not acknowledge or serve lesbian
needs/issues, is not lesbian/gay friendly or otherwise inclusive of
those with different sexual orientations, or does not appear to be
committed to cultural and/or ethnic diversity.
3
ORDINARY MAGIC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 1998
Message Testing
A total of 157 lesbians who participated in the other elements of the LDRP
volunteered to participate in a test message survey. Written test message survey
packages were mailed to 153 of these volunteers in August 1998. A total of
108 (70.6%) responses were returned to an independent research firm; 98 of
those responses were tabulated.
According to their responses:
Lesbians want the facts presented in a bold, clean, concise manner, i.e.,
easy to read and understand. Statistics tied directly to individuals and/or
personal situations are most effective.
Clean, powerful graphics should be used to capture their attention.
Overly emotional, sentimentalized approaches feel manipulative and
contrived. Materials that communicate passivity or helplessness are not
compelling to lesbians.
Lesbians want to know that their donation makes a difference. Materials
should demonstrate how each dollar will contribute to solving a stated
problem. Be specific and relevant. If the presentation sets up a problem,
demonstrate concretely how a financial gift will contribute to the solution of
the problem.
Messages aimed directly at lesbians should not be token or gratuitous.
Don't include references to lesbians without substantive reason.
Other Conclusions & Recommendations
In General
It became clear through the process of identifying research participants and
compiling mailing lists that only the two national lesbian funds (Astraea and
Legacy) could identify their donors or prospects as lesbian, and even then not
with 100% certainty. This is, of course, a major inhibitor of WFN member
fund outreach to lesbians. Given privacy concerns, maintaining a coded
database for purposes of direct mail outreach targeted specifically to lesbians
4
ORDINARY MAGIC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 1998
would be problematic. Women's funds and other philanthropic organizations
seeking to attract lesbian donors will first need to develop pro-active ways of
learning about and addressing lesbian needs and then projecting a clearly
lesbian-friendly/inclusiv identity.
Similarities and Differences - Lesbian and Heterosexual Donors
Like their heterosexual counterparts in the DRMP, the lesbians in this study
who give to women's funds are likely to have been personally involved with the
fund in some way - either financially and/or as a volunteer - although this
appears to be less important to them than the mission of the organization. Major
donors were likely to have been involved with the fund for an extended period
of time and several had been founders of the fund to which they still contribute,
or are close personal friends of a founder or original executive director. These
lesbian donors to women's funds do not limit their giving to women's funds,
but make gifts to a broad range of other causes as well.
The lesbians participating in this study also had a low level of understanding
and/or were confused about what a women's fund is, or does, or how it is
distinguished from any number of other organizations that benefit women and
girls.
Message Development
The DRMP provides WFN and its member funds with information about what
motivates women donors, how they make decisions about giving and their
preferences for different programs and projects. This information is now
further substantiated and augmented by similar information about what
motivates lesbian donors. As specific elements of this new research are used to
craft various messages specifically to lesbians, there are several key points to
keep in mind:
There is no single profile of a lesbian donor. Do not pander to stereotypes.
Remember that lesbians place priority on the same values other women do.
5
ORDINARY MAGIC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 1998
If your organization's mission includes a commitment to ethnic and cultural
diversity that includes sexual orientation, clearly articulate this. When
lesbians are visibly part of staff, board, or volunteers, and most importantly
recipients of grants, the lesbians in this study are more likely to give to the
organization.
Be prepared to deliver a consistent message over a long period of time. Old
myths and misperceptions die hard. Don't expect positive results in the
short-term.
The role of a women's fund/foundation is distinctly different from that of
other types of organizations, projects or programs serving women and girls.
Messages should reflect and highlight those distinctions and core strengths
in relationship to the specific needs/issues affecting lesbians.
6
Women's Funding Network Lesbian Donor Research Project
Part I
Project Overview
ORDINARY MAGIC
PROJECT OVERVIEW
SEPTEMBER 1998
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Purpose of the Project
The Women's Funding Network (WFN) links and serves women's funds,
women donors and supporting institutions throughout the United States and
Canada. Its mission is to ensure that women's funds are recognized as the
"investment of choice" for people who value the full participation of women and
girls as key to strong, equitable and sustainable communities and societies.
WFN serves as the advocate and membership arm for over 70 women's funds
across North America, promotes increased giving to women's organizations
and provides critical leadership and support to the women's funding movement.
At least two WFN member funds, both national in scope, serve lesbians
exclusively as part of their mission. Others also make grants that benefit
lesbians. In addition, many contributors to WFN and its member funds are
lesbians. Little is known, however, about the attitudes, giving preferences and
priorities of this largely invisible group of women. While there has been a great
deal written about women donors in general, most of it is anecdotal. Very little,
if any, of this material addresses the role lesbians play in funding women's
funds, issues and causes, nor does it examine why lesbians give or do not give
to a women's fund.
This project grew out of specific interest on the part of the Gill Foundation in
the Donor Research and Marketing Project and its implications for learning
more about lesbian philanthropy. Ordinary Magic, DRMP project consultant,
was retained to design and conduct the Lesbian Donor Research Project.
Project Objectives
The design, development and implementation of the LDRP was governed by the
following objectives:
7
ORDINARY MAGIC
PROJECT OVERVIEW
SEPTEMBER 1998
To use both quantitative and qualitative research methods to obtain new
information specifically about the personal characteristics of lesbian
donors, their giving habits, and their responsiveness to giving messages
and mediums.
To develop general information about lesbian audiences that can be used
to create messages about women's funds and about projects and
programs benefiting women and girls.
To develop, test and refine fundraising messages with volunteers who
had participated in earlier phases of the research in order to help WFN,
its member funds, and other philanthropic organizations craft successful
appeals to lesbian audiences.
Research Design
With the specific project objectives in mind, and with the desire to compare the
data gathered with the findings of the DRMP, the research was designed with
the same four distinct components:
1) focus groups - one each for lesbian donors and known non-
donors to women's funds, lesbian/gay and other public foundations,
and WFN - in two different cities in order to include as much diversity
of opinion as possible within budget constraints;
2) personal interviews with a cross-section of lesbian known major
donors at various levels to both women's funds and projects and
programs benefiting women and girls, as well as to other philanthropic
organizations;
3) a comprehensive written survey designed to examine the attitudes
and giving preferences of known lesbian non-donors to women's funds;
4) an additional written test message survey, sent to those
participants in the focus groups, personal interviews and written survey
who indicated that they would be willing to participate further in the test
message phase.
8
ORDINARY MAGIC
PROJECT OVERVIEW
SEPTEMBER 1998
This combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches afforded a means by
which certain assumptions about lesbian giving behaviors as well as significant
themes emerging from the smaller universe of focus group and personal
interview participants could be more fully explored or confirmed with a much
larger population.
In addition to using one method to help inform another, combining approaches
or methods in a single study provides triangulation in the classic sense of
seeking convergence of results, and helps identify overlapping and different
facets of a phenomenon that may emerge.²
The focus group discussion guides and worksheets can be found in Exhibit A,
the personal interview guide in Exhibit C, the written survey instrument in
Exhibit D, and the written test message survey in Exhibit E.
2 Creswell. John W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications.
9
Women's Funding Network Lesbian Donor Research Project
Part II
Methodology and
Sample
ORDINARY MAGIC
PROJECT OVERVIEW
SEPTEMBER 1998
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Purpose of the Project
The Women's Funding Network (WFN) links and serves women's funds,
women donors and supporting institutions throughout the United States and
Canada. Its mission is to ensure that women's funds are recognized as the
"investment of choice" for people who value the full participation of women and
girls as key to strong, equitable and sustainable communities and societies.
WFN serves as the advocate and membership arm for over 70 women's funds
across North America, promotes increased giving to women's organizations
and provides critical leadership and support to the women's funding movement.
At least two WFN member funds, both national in scope, serve lesbians
exclusively as part of their mission. Others also make grants that benefit
lesbians. In addition, many contributors to WFN and its member funds are
lesbians. Little is known, however, about the attitudes, giving preferences and
priorities of this largely invisible group of women. While there has been a great
deal written about women donors in general, most of it is anecdotal. Very little,
if any, of this material addresses the role lesbians play in funding women's
funds, issues and causes, nor does it examine why lesbians give or do not give
to a women's fund.
This project grew out of specific interest on the part of the Gill Foundation in
the Donor Research and Marketing Project and its implications for learning
more about lesbian philanthropy. Ordinary Magic, DRMP project consultant,
was retained to design and conduct the Lesbian Donor Research Project.
Project Objectives
The design, development and implementation of the LDRP was governed by the
following objectives:
7
ORDINARY MAGIC
PROJECT OVERVIEW
SEPTEMBER 1998
To use both quantitative and qualitative research methods to obtain new
information specifically about the personal characteristics of lesbian
donors, their giving habits, and their responsiveness to giving messages
and mediums.
To develop general information about lesbian audiences that can be used
to create messages about women's funds and about projects and
programs benefiting women and girls.
To develop, test and refine fundraising messages with volunteers who
had participated in earlier phases of the research in order to help WFN,
its member funds, and other philanthropic organizations craft successful
appeals to lesbian audiences.
Research Design
With the specific project objectives in mind, and with the desire to compare the
data gathered with the findings of the DRMP, the research was designed with
the same four distinct components:
1) focus groups - one each for lesbian donors and known non-
donors to women's funds, lesbian/gay and other public foundations,
and WFN - in two different cities in order to include as much diversity
of opinion as possible within budget constraints;
2) personal interviews with a cross-section of lesbian known major
donors at various levels to both women's funds and projects and
programs benefiting women and girls, as well as to other philanthropic
organizations;
3) a comprehensive written survey designed to examine the attitudes
and giving preferences of known lesbian non-donors to women's funds;
4) an additional written test message survey, sent to those
participants in the focus groups, personal interviews and written survey
who indicated that they would be willing to participate further in the test
message phase.
8
ORDINARY MAGIC
PROJECT OVERVIEW
SEPTEMBER 1998
This combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches afforded a means by
which certain assumptions about lesbian giving behaviors as well as significant
themes emerging from the smaller universe of focus group and personal
interview participants could be more fully explored or confirmed with a much
larger population.
In addition to using one method to help inform another, combining approaches
or methods in a single study provides triangulation in the classic sense of
seeking convergence of results, and helps identify overlapping and different
facets of a phenomenon that may emerge. 2
The focus group discussion guides and worksheets can be found in Exhibit A,
the personal interview guide in Exhibit C, the written survey instrument in
Exhibit D, and the written test message survey in Exhibit E.
2 Creswell. John W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications.
9
Women's Funding Network Lesbian Donor Research Project
Part III
Key Findings
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
KEY FINDINGS
The Inquiry
Building on the Donor Research and Marketing Project (DRMP), this study
explored what motivates lesbians to give to women's funds or to projects and
programs that benefit women and girls. It also sought to capture a sense of
what motivates lesbians to give to projects or programs that serve lesbians and
gay men, as well as to other charitable causes. Overall, this was a close first
look at the giving behaviors, preferences and priorities of lesbians and whether
those behaviors are markedly different from the more general population of
women⁷ who participated in the DRMP.
In mirroring the DRMP, the Lesbian Donor Research Project (LDR) explored
the following major themes, topics and questions:
Awareness of WFN and/or a member women's fund.
Awareness of what women's funds are and do.
Preferences for giving to a fund versus directly to a project or
program.
Type of projects and programs that receive gifts.
Reasons for giving and not giving - including barriers to giving in
general, to women's funds, and to projects and programs that
benefit women and girls, and lesbians and gays specifically.
Dollar ranges of giving.
How giving decisions are made and the factors influencing those
decisions.
Donor recognition preferences.
Preferences in case presentation/solicitation methods and materials.
The appeal of specific test messages.
7 It is assumed that the DRMP participant pool is representative of the larger population, i.e., the majority
(@90%) of the DRMP participants are heterosexual. Although several lesbians were known to have
participated in the DRMP. they were not formally identified as such nor was the data gathering designed to
segment the study population along the lines of sexual orientation. There is no evidence that lesbians are
any more involved in the leadership of, or as donors to, women's funds than are other women. In fact, the
LDRP findings suggest that - with the exception of lesbian-identified funds such as Astraea and Legacy -
they are not. choosing instead to fund the arts and culture, lesbian/gay service groups and politically
progressive causes and organizations.
14
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
The Findings
The presentation of these findings is generally focused on, and organized
around, comparisons of the LDRP findings to those of the DRMP. Where
possible and appropriate, comparative tables are shown. Refer to Appendices
1-3 for complete tabulations of results.
Awareness
= Awareness of WFN and/or member women's fund. Lesbian donors,
particularly the personal interviewees, tended to be aware of WFN and could
name a women's fund in their area. Not surprisingly, the member funds
receiving the most frequent mention were the Astraea National Lesbian Action
Foundation, An Uncommon Legacy Foundation and the Ms. Foundation for
Women - the first two serving lesbians exclusively and the sources of the
written survey mailing lists. However, only 45% of those participating in the
written survey could name a fund or foundation in their area; 40% did not know
for sure if there was one in their area, compared to 38% of the DRMP
respondents. One could also argue based on the responses that many non-
donor lesbians don't think of funds that exclusively serve lesbians as
"women's" funds.
Personal interview participants were also asked if they were familiar with other
local progressive funds or foundations, and local lesbian/gay community funds.
Three quarters answered affirmatively and offered the names of these
organizations. On average, these respondents named four funds, although not
all were local. Most could identify public foundations or funds that support
lesbian/gay issues and have connections to lesbian/gay foundations.
D Confusion about what women's funds are and do. Responses from
lesbian non-donors, and even from some of the fairly sophisticated donors,
indicate that lesbians are no less confused about what a women's fund actually
is and does - as distinct from a project or program serving women and girls -
than their DRMP counterparts. Consistent with the DRMP results, LDRP
written survey respondents identified a broad range of woman-related projects
and programs when asked to name a fund or foundation in their area. Examples
15
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
included Junior League, Women's Bean Project (for homeless women),
Planned Parenthood, Leadership in Progress, and the Council Against Domestic
Assault. LDRP respondents also named, and were clearly aware of, several
projects and programs serving lesbian interests such as Lesbian Natural
Resources, and their local gay and lesbian community center.
Giving Preferences
) Putting lesbians first - most of the time. When asked if they would be
more or less likely to support an organization serving women and girls in
general versus lesbians specifically, 48% of the written survey respondents said
it would not matter, while 28% said they would be less inclined to support an
organization that served women and girls, but not lesbians specifically. When
asked the same questions regarding organizations that serve both lesbians and
gay men versus lesbians exclusively, 39% said it would not matter but 43%
admitted that they would be less inclined to support an organization that
supported both lesbians and gays versus lesbians exclusively.
When personal interview participants were asked the same set of questions,
only a few stated a preference for organizations serving women and girls
without a specific lesbian focus. The rest were divided between preference for
funding lesbians exclusively and stating that it would not matter or, "it
depends." No one preferred the choice of lesbians and gay men over lesbians
exclusively. Responses were evenly divided between preference for funding
lesbians only and saying it would not matter or specifically, "it depends."
Similar sentiments were echoed in the focus groups.
"As a parent and at work, my life is filled with
straight people. I love building bridges between
communities and seeing the kind of change that
comes from exchange, but the bottomline is, lesbians
and gays are my priority."
"Organizations look to gays and lesbians to be
donors and ticket buyers but they don't honor or
address gays or lesbians in their programming."
"I don't see straights throwing their life and time and
resources into us. If we don't do it, who will?"
16
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
D Giving to a fund vs. direct giving. Compared to DRMP participants,
there was almost the same level of the preference to give directly to a project or
program; the vast majority (78% LDRP; 81% DRMP) prefer to make direct
gifts.
"I just want direct control over my money. I'd rather
send a check to 2002 than to Philanthrofund to give it
to 2002."
To which one focus group participant replied:
"Part of giving it away is not being in control
anymore.'
D Types of giving. When asked what type of giving appealed to them most,
LDRP respondents showed a much higher preference than their DRMP
counterparts for special event ticket purchase. The following table shows how
types of giving ranked with both LDRP and DRMP written survey participants.
While the same types of giving ranked in the top four for each group, there is
clearly a relative difference in the preference for event ticket purchase.
Table 1. Preferences - Types of Giving
LDRP
Types of Giving
DRMP
%
Rank
%
Rank
56
1
One gift per org made each year
67
1
51
2
Purchase tickets to special events
36
3
43
3
Organizational membership
37
2
36
4
Purchase goods or services/proceeds to charity
32
4
) Who receives the gifts. Results of the written survey to known lesbian
non-donors revealed many similarities to DRMP respondents in preferences for
who receives gifts, but some dramatic differences as well. Lesbian/gay rights
was barely mentioned by DRMP respondents but, not surprisingly, was the
overwhelming preference in this category for the lesbian respondents.
Domestic violence/assault prevention and services that topped the DRMP list
ranked only sixth on the LDRP list.
17
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
Table 2. Social or Political Cause Giving Preferences
LDRP
Type of Organization
DRMP
%
Rank
%
Rank
80
1
Lesbian/gay civil rights
*
51
2
Equal Rights and social justice
43
3
49
3
Equal rights for women
33
4
45
4
Environmental issues
47
2
43
5
Feminist organizations
23
10
36
6
Domestic violence/sexual assault prevent/services
48
1
[* Not ranked: sometimes mentioned in "Other" category.)
In the general, community-based charitable giving category, there were again
some marked differences, one fairly dramatic: DRMP respondents put giving to
religious or spiritual organizations solidly at the top of their list, across most
demographics. But for the lesbian respondents, that category fell to eleventh in
order of preference. Otherwise, four of the top six DRMP picks also appeared
in the top six LDRP picks.
Table 3. General Community-Based Charitable Giving Preferences
LDRP
Type of Organization
DRMP
%
Rank
%
Rank
49
1
Arts & Culture
39
5
48
2
Health programs/prolects(AIDS heart, cancer, etc.)
46
2
42
3
Lesbian programs
*
38
4
Women and girl's programs
38
6
34
5
Homeless/hunger
42
4
32
6
Women's programs
26
11
[* Not ranked.]
When asked which kinds of organizations serving lesbians and gay men would
be most likely to receive their gift, those dealing with civil/equal rights (70%)
were preferred over the next closest group, social policy and legal projects
(40%) nearly two to one. These were followed by arts and culture (39%),
HIV/AIDS related (36%), political candidates or campaigns (35%) and youth
programs (33%).
18
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
In all, the lesbian respondents to the written survey showed a clear preference
for funding the arts and equal/civil rights organizations or causes focused on
lesbians/gays and women.
These preferences were confirmed by the lesbian major donors interviewed, as
well as the focus group participants. After probing the details of recent major
gifts, personal interview participants were asked what kinds of organizations,
projects and programs they are most likely to support with a major gift. The
range of non profits selected and the reasons for doing so were quite varied.
Most respondents named more than five kinds of organizations that they would
select. A significant majority of causes and types of organizations specified
were either benefiting lesbians or supporting lesbian/gay causes, and women's
causes.
While general charities were named by these donors, such as their children's
school, their own college or church, Jewish or Israel-related funds and a few
global projects, these were not dominant in the responses. The strongly
demonstrated preference for supporting women's projects and lesbian/gay
causes showed in three main categories; social justice, economic and
community development, and health related issues.
Within the category of health related issues, HIV/AIDS related projects were not
frequently mentioned and two donors stated they have decreased their funding
in recent times.
"It's seen now as a chronic disease. We've stopped
losing our friends."
Many focus group participants also addressed this issue, with several stating
that their interest in supporting HIV/AIDS related causes had waned in
preference for women's health issues that were seen as still largely ignored by
their gay brothers to whom they had given so much.
"Gay men are giving to gay things. We are giving to
gay men's health issues, but men aren't giving to
ours."
Donors also recognize that suicide prevention for lesbian/gay youth is a health
issue and four donors specified these projects for their gifts.
19
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
These focus group donors showed a strong leaning toward independent
thinking in their selections. Like many of their DRMP counterparts, several
noted they only fund organizations that are not well funded from other sources.
They carefully select causes they don't believe others will support.
"I want to help those who may not be able to go
elsewhere."
"I only fund within [the gay and lesbian]
community."
Another response not seen in the DRMP interviews was offered: several donors
chose charities for which they had never been solicited, or that had neglected to
solicit them for a repeat gift. They reported searching out the organizations they
wanted to support.
"Lambda Legal did not cultivate me. I just do it."
Another approach employed by these participants is to make gifts to funds,
organizations and/or charities and direct them to preferred projects.
"I give to the Women's Foundation but I direct the
money to lesbian causes."
Several examples were given of contributions to United Way being earmarked
for a local lesbian/gay organization or project.
As each of the twenty-one women interviewed identified numerous recipients
for their giving, one kind of gift was specified again and again: the political
contribution. In the DRMP personal interviews, major donors did not make
priority mention of political gifts. We cannot assume that the DRMP pool does
not make political gifts - in fact we know they do (Emily's List, individual
candidates, etc.). However, these lesbian donors seem more inclined to
political giving. The number of political gifts mentioned in the personal
interviews points toward a heightened awareness of, and interest in, funding
lesbian/gay candidates and/or those who will support lesbian/gay issues.
20
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
Motivations for Giving
) The impulse to give. As were the DRMP participants, LDRP participants
in the written survey are inclined to give, with over 95 percent (97% DRMP)
having made a charitable gift in the past 12 months. (See page 24 for a
comparison of sizes and ranges of gifts.)
"We give 8% of our annual income to charity. It
might not seem like a lot, but to us, its like a tithe."
"We give 6% to charity. When I am selecting a non
profit I want to feel convinced that the people
involved genuinely want to change the circumstances
as much as I do."
However, only 84% reported that they had made a financial gift to any lesbian
and/or gay organization in the last 12 months.
"Some lesbian issues are not at the top of my list so I
earmark money to specific things within an
organization - even Astraea."
"You give to an organization you love, but
sometimes even they fund something you don't agree
with."
"I' m not committed to just one thing. It's important
for me to give to many things, not just to lesbians
only."
The percentage giving to foundations or funds whose mission is to support
projects and programs serving women and girls (confusion on this subject not-
withstanding) was far less: 51 percent. By further comparison, 61 percent of
the DRMP respondents reported giving to women's funds.
) Reasons for giving to women's funds. Reasons cited by lesbians for
giving to women's funds were not dissimilar from other women donors.
"I like giving to a fund or foundation - they have a
much better sense of what's going on."
However, the importance of commitment to ethnic and cultural diversity -
including sexual orientation - was much greater for the lesbian respondents,
while personal involvement was less important.
21
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
"If you want lesbian dollars you must deal with
lesbian issues or else identify [ask] lesbians for
whom these issues are not a priority."
Table 4. Reasons for Giving to Women's Funds
LDRP
Reason
DRMP
%
Rank
%
Rank
74
1
Believe strongly in the mission of the organization
76
1
57
2
Empathy for the causes, projects or programs a
60
2
women's fund supports
38
3
Commitment to ethnic/cultural diversity
23
5
32
4
Trust the organization's judgement
27
4
28
5
Personally involved with the organization
42
3
"My own foundation is only three years old and I
consider myself in training. I make a large gift to the
Ms. Foundation. The staff at Ms. provides me a
learning environment."
"I first started giving to the women's fund because I
knew the director. As I got more personally
involved, the more I knew, the more I wanted to
support it. There aren't that many funding networks
for women and the women's fund took a lot of risks
and funded things no one else would. A lot of us felt
it was important - the mission was social change."
"I am interested in social justice. I support national
women's funds, because the local group I know well
is not really representative. It is run by white
women."
"I'm more interested in what's being done and who's
doing it, though I do look at credibility, at how
compatible the board is with how I define myself."
) Reasons for not giving to women's funds. The noticeable differences
between non-donor lesbians and DRMP non-donors had to do with seeing
women as a priority and with perceptions about the financial resources needed
to be a donor. Thirty percent of non-donor lesbians cited lack of financial
resources, compared to only 20% of DRMP non-donors. Giving priorities not
focused on women and girls was cited by 37% of respondents in the DRMP,
while only 14% of non-donor lesbians gave this reason. A notable similarity
between the two studies was that a similar percentage of non-donors in each
22
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
study said that the reason for not giving was that they had not been asked. Note
that both groups of non-donors were on the mailing lists of a fund and had, in
fact, received some type of solicitation. This would indicate that these lesbians
either weren't asked in a way to which they could relate, or that the ask itself
(the message) was not powerful enough to be remembered.
The issue of not having the capacity to give is an interesting one since the LDRP
written survey respondents reported only marginally lower annual household
incomes than the DRMP respondents.⁸
"Why don't lesbians give? Lesbians don't believe
they can give. With gay males, money is in their
lifestyles."
"I didn't give for a long time and then I realized I
didn't have to give a lot. The amount given was less
important than the act of giving."
"Lesbians may be nervous about giving because
they'll be hassled. I have been through this. They are
closeted about having money."
"I think more lesbians don't give to our own causes
because they are afraid of being 'outed', especially
on the job. They are afraid they will end up on some
list and be flooded with mail."
"If women's funds valued small gifts, they might get
more of them - if I know the value of my gift and
can connect it to something tangible. If I can only
donate $10, that's a truckload of wood for a woman
who needs to be there [a women's rural retreat space]
for a month or two."
Table 5. Reasons for Not Giving to Women's Funds
LDRP
Reason
DRMP
%
Rank
%
Rank
32
1
Wasn't asked
33
2
30
2
Lack of financial resources
20
3
26
3
Prefer to give directly to project or program
17
5
14
4
Giving priorities are not focused on women and girls
37
1
8 Exception: 31% of the DRMP respondents reported income at the $95K+ level vs. only 21% of the LDRP
respondents.
23
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
A small number of lesbian non-donors cited a fund's lack of ability or
willingness to serve lesbian needs as a factor, while many lesbian donors did.
They felt that some women's funds are generally unresponsive (if not outright
homophobic) when it comes to lesbian issues.
"My progressive, strict guidelines can make me feel
marginalized to the women's funding movement. I
require components of what kind of programs,
targeted constituency, progressive purpose I want to
see. So, I don't make the majority of my funding
through women's funds."
Other reasons included:
"Most of my giving is not to women's funds. I think
my other giving is important to economic and social
justice organizing. I like activities that convene
progressive organizers for long term collaborations
and leadership development."
"I consider myself politically aware. I prefer giving
to grass roots organizations, about $2,000 on
average, then I move from one level of giving to
another."
Like many DRMP non-donors, LDRP non-donors felt that their volunteer time
is an important contribution, not always highly valued.
"Not having great wealth, my time is what I value. I
would write a check to PBS because I watch it, but
it's not near and dear to my heart. I wouldn't give
them my time. If it's near and dear to me, I will give
up time off from work, or a day's pay. I will do
whatever they think they need. If it's gathering
names, I will do that."
) Types of gifts made. A majority of written survey respondents indicated
that their gift had taken the form of a ticket purchase to a luncheon or special
event. For 19% of these lesbians (13% DRMP), it was their first gift.
Table 6. Types of Gifts Made
LDRP
Type of Gift
DRMP
%
Rank
%
Rank
53
1
Purchased tickets to event/speaker event, etc.
44
3
44
2
Annual gift
49
1
31
3
Gift to specific project or program
47
2
24
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
)
Some personal giving histories. In the personal interviews conducted
with major lesbian donors, a series of questions was first asked about the
donor's most recent major gift(s)9. The recipients of these most recent major
gifts varied from social justice causes, lesbian/gay funds, political
contributions, capital campaigns and other charitable purposes.
Of interest is that only about one quarter of these major gifts were regularly
repeated gifts, made year after year to support operating and program expenses.
Another one quarter of respondents stated their most recent major gift was a
first time gift to an organization that was relatively new to them. These findings
are in sharp contrast to the DRMP where more than one half the recent major
gifts were reported to be repeat, annual gifts. Virtually no new or first time
major gifts were reported in that survey. The DRMP personal interviewees
reported that their gifts grew in size over time to their charities and that they
would not be inclined to make sizable gifts until they were more knowledgeable
about a non profit cause. The lesbians questioned reported that their major gifts
were often first time gifts made at social events (or as a result of an event), and
in the company of other lesbians they knew and trusted, who were donating.
The term "social event" is used broadly to include any kind of gathering for
philanthropic purposes, including private dinners hosted at a friend's home or
other form of house party, a workshop, conference, or large fundraising
luncheon or dinner.
Other responses as to the donor's most recent major gift(s) included capital gifts
to lesbian/gay community centers and for "other" purposes such as for a special
project. In response to this initial inquiry, only one respondent had recently
made a donation to an endowment fund. Again, many respondents giving
capital or "other" major gifts learned about the non profit at a social event. Even
repeat annual gifts may have been generated originally through social events.
"I attended a weekend retreat for women of inherited
wealth and I heard about this group then."
9 Major gift was self-defining.
25
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
"I got into this because I accepted an invitation to see
Judy Chicago's 'Dinner Party' exhibition years ago.
Many of us who later founded our gay and lesbian
community fund met there."
The importance and role of this social link for lesbians should not be
underestimated: regardless of the type of major gift - an annual gift, capital,
etc. - three quarters of them were solicited or cultivated through social events.
For these lesbian donors, the lesbian/gay receptions, dances and dinners were
important points of entry into the world of philanthropy. Several mentioned the
fun of dressing up and the specialness of being with other lesbians and gay
men.
"We don't go out too much because we have
small children. But when we do, it's for a
lesbian cause."
"I would never have learned about this group if I
hadn't met these people at the reception."
"My friend said going to the HRC dinner was a
place to be seen, but it's been rough on me. I'm
a Republican! But, I've been going for the last
three years."
"You meet great friends by giving."
Size of Gifts
In the personal interviews, each donor was asked the amount of her last major
gift, as self-defined. In a few instances the recent gift discussed was less than
$500. However, the overall range of giving for these participants during the
last year was $5,000 to one million dollars. Two donors had made multiple
gifts of $50,000 each within a year, several more had made multiple gifts of
$10,000 each within the past year, and one donor had made a $40,000
donation.
Written survey respondents (known non-donors to a women's fund) gave
predictably less but in a fairly consistent range ($100-499), regardless of who
received the gift.
26
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
Table 7. Comparative Ranges of Giving, past 12 months -
Written Survey Respondents
Women's
Lesbian
General
Funds
Gay Orgs
Commun
Range
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
$0
2
0.5
1
0.3
0
0.0
$1-99
58
32.2
93
25.5
44
12.1
$100 - $499
69
37.1
116
31.8
125
34.2
$500 - $999
28
15.1
46
12.6
63
17.3
$1,000 - $2,499
9
2.5
32
8.8
65
17.8
$2,500 - $4,999
3
0.8
8
2.2
23
6.3
$5,000 - $9,999
0
0.0
4
1.1
17
4.7
$10,000 - $24,999
1
0.3
2
0.5
6
1.6
$25,000 or more
2
0.5
3
0.8
5
1.4
Fifty-two percent of the written survey respondents indicated that they were
likely to increase their overall charitable giving within the next five years.
Major donors in the focus groups reported giving to funds, projects or
programs primarily benefiting women and girls in a wide range from no gift at
all to $50,000; directly to projects and programs benefiting women and girls in
a range from no gift to $75,000; and to organizations serving lesbians and gays
in the range of $250-$75,000. Known non-donors in the focus groups
reported giving gifts upwards to $10,000 to general charitable causes, while the
largest gift to women and girls was only $500, and to lesbian/gay organizations
only $250.
) Means of giving. Lesbian donors also used a variety of means to make their
gifts. One quarter identified their last major gift as a multi-year pledge, with one
noting that "this was the only way we could do this." Two responded that they
made gifts by using their credit cards, voicing surprise that more groups don't
offer this option.
" I have an insurance plan that directs my
premiums to this organization."
"I set up a Charitable Remainder Unitrust with
$200,000 of my 401K benefits."
27
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
Decision Making
)
How decisions are made. LDRP personal interview participants were
asked how they select their charities and determine how large their gifts should
be. Do they make their decisions alone, with their partners, or rely on advice
from counsel? One half of respondents make giving decisions with their
partners. One half make their decisions alone. Of these, almost 50% noted they
are single. No one relied upon advice from outside professional counsel.
"We always give jointly. The statement is important.
It's a consciousness raiser."
Whether or not coupled lesbians tend to make their giving decisions in concert
with their partners more than heterosexual women do remains to be seen. Many
DRMP personal interviewees and focus group participants reported that they
made their decisions independently of their spouse, but offered provisos, such
as " but he knows what I'm doing." Still others liked to make decisions with
their spouse. LDRP interviewees seemed to relish their joint decision making
processes: "We are disgustingly egalitarian."
The DRMP included a significant number of donors who included their children
in their giving decisions. In the lesbian major donor group, when the concept
of a family foundation is mentioned, they are generally referencing their
parents' foundation that they run, or their own.
"My partner and I are our own foundation. We
take this very seriously."
) Influencing factors. When asked which factors most influence their giving
and help determine how large their gift will be, most donors identified several
specific conditions. The reputation or track record of the project or program
matters to the donor. The person making the ask clearly influences donor
decisions. The demonstrated need of the project is important to these
respondents as are the opinions of others who have given. Also mentioned were
having made a previous gift, making a memorial gift and the quality of the case
presentation.
28
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
When asked if they are most likely to respond to an appeal for a gift that is
delivered personally, a large number volunteered they respond positively to,
indeed expect, outreach from an organization's leadership or personal delivery
of the appeal by a friend.
"I have a standard if you are asking me for money:
If it's a thousand dollars or more, there must be
personal contact. If you want a thousand dollars, I
deserve a phone call."
"A brief visit is best. I like to hear personal stories in
that meeting."
"If I meet with a charity that is asking for money, I
like a client of the program to be there. Let me hear
directly from them. I have given more when a
recipient of the services is present."
These donors also respond to an appeal for a gift that includes a well written
letter or brief proposal. They also respond favorably to a well written letter from
someone they know personally.
Many donors learned about their chosen charities through friends' advice and
persuasion.
"A friend contacted me about One Hundred
Lesbians and Our Friends, a group effort to
generate $100,000 to give away to lesbian
causes. Each of us would give $1,000 and pretty
quickly we generated what we were looking for."
Board membership and other forms of service play an integral part in helping
make a decision to commit a major gift.
"The woman who chaired the capital campaign
asked me to Co-chair. Then she said I'd better
make a lead gift. I pledged $50,000 over three
years. It was the largest gift I'd ever made."
Some lesbian donors employ strategies not seen in previous studies, perhaps as
a response to perceived discrimination.
"My partner works for an employer that will
match employee charitable donations. We set up
a joint checking account and I use it to make my
own contributions. Then, she submits my gift
written on our joint account so she can get a
match for the non profit. It's our way to leverage
our giving."
29
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
Discrimination can have an impact on giving.
"My first donation, after I started working, was
to my college, which had meant a lot to me. I
always gave each year, until they wouldn't list
my name with my partner's. I haven't given
again."
A young donor said her older partner - who gives considerably less than she
- is always treated as the donor, asked for more gifts and treated with
deference. "It's really noticeable," she added.
These participants' personal giving histories also included mentions of
significant life benchmarks: inherited wealth, earned income making charitable
gifts possible, establishing a family foundation, coming out and coming out to
family and employers. Financial and emotional security invariably preceded a
commitment to making major gifts.
"I came from a family tradition of giving but as a
lesbian, didn't feel I had a place to give. There may
be a lot of lesbians not giving back because they're
not over their own homophobia."
"When I started giving money, I already had the
consciousness that I was a lesbian and an activist and
I had to fund my own. It's that simple."
LDRP written survey respondents placed emphasis on many of the same
influencing factors as their sisters in the DRMP. Lesbians also ranked the
organization's friendliness to lesbians and gays nearly as highly as the
reputation or track record of the organization.
Table 8. Influencing Factors
LDRP
Factor
DRMP
%
Rank
%
Rank
71
1
Reputation/track record of the organization
70
2
70
2
Organization is lesbian/gay friendly
.
69
3
The type of people served by the org
68
3
69
4
Personal passion/commitment to org/cause
73
1
63
5
Bellef the gift will make a difference
60
5
62
6
Understanding of the need
66
4
[*Not specifically asked in the DRMP survey.}
30
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
Recognition
Opinions were divided on the need for recognition and more importantly, the
form it takes. Recognition seems also linked to motivation for giving, though
not in a traditional sense of ego-gratification.
"It meant a lot that somewhere in print we're
together."
"A well-known, award-winning actress here tells the
story that she had been with her girlfriend for twelve
years and the first time they saw their names jointly
in something they cried."
"We want to be listed together. It' S important for
others to see that lesbians support these things."
"When giving to lesbian organizations, we made the
decision to identify ourselves as such. But for other
organizations it feels a little exhibitionist."
Many interviewees and focus group participants felt strongly that it was
important to be publicly recognized, most especially as a lesbian couple when
giving to non-lesbian/gay organizations. High priority was placed on being
visible lesbian donors as a model for others.
Being recognized publicly - in published programs and the like - of course
has implications for those struggling with being "out." This points again to the
possible strong link between financial security, emotional security, 10 and the
making of larger gifts.
"The more comfortable you get with yourself, the
more you give."
"Maybe you have to 'use' a while before you give."
10 As defined by the participants, emotional security means, in part, being comfortable with one's
sexuality, being out to family, friends and co-workers as well as. for some, being in a committed relationship
that is recognized by family, friends and co-workers.
31
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
Case Presentation Methods and Materials
D
Methods of Presentation. Both focus group and written survey
participants were asked what methods of fundraising they prefer. Preferences
were similar, by percentage, for all but one method.
Table 9. Methods Most Likely to Appeal - Written Survey Respondents
LDRP
Method
DRMP
%
Rank
%
Rank
51
1
Delivered in a well-written letter that is
58
1
accompanied by an informational brochure
42
2
Delivered personally by a friend/colleague
32
4
41
3
Delivered in a well-written letter signed by someone
41
3
you know personally
40
4
Delivered in a well-written letter/proposal
43
2
30
5
Delivered personally by organization leadership
30
5
30
6
Delivered personally by spouse or partner
17
6
) Materials. All focus groups participants were shown six separate pieces of
written communication. These included two print ads (Exhibits B.1, B.2), a
newsletter (Exhibit B.3), and three direct mail fundraising appeals (Exhibits
B.4, B.5, B.6), one with a letter accompanied by a brochure, one using a letter
format with an enclosed pledge envelope and one a multi-piece package with a
brochure. Four of these exhibits (B.1, B.2, B.5 and B.6) had been shown to
the DRMP focus group participants.
The reactions and comments were strikingly similar. Exhibits B.1 and B.6 were most
frequently cited as the presentations with the highest impact. Exhibit B.6, however, was
also severely criticized by the Minneapolis group participants who felt it was
environmentally wasteful and emotionally crude. Exhibit B.6, continuing to elicit a few
negative comments for its high impact approach, was nonetheless appreciated by the others
for its no nonsense, straightforward, "in-your-face" presentation - brief, simple, easily
understood, attention-getting. Lesbians, as did other women donors, felt strongly about
this one, one way or the other. They either loved it or were offended by it; most loved it
and reacted positively. The photographs helped to put a "face" on the appeal and humanize
32
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
the statistics that many found to be alarming. 11 An excerpt from Exhibit B.6 was tested in
the test message survey. Please refer to Appendix 2 for further commentary.
Exhibit B.1 was preferred for many of the same reasons - simple, with very
little copy, and a compelling visual of a real person.
"I can totally relate to the feeling in the
photograph."
"It' s simple and powerful, not glitzy."
"The line 'And someone will give her a chance,'
makes me want to be the one.
Similar to the DRMP response, Exhibit B.2 also received high mention for
these reasons, though it did not have as high an impact as B.1.
Exhibit B.3, the newsletter, was generally appreciated for being a quick read, inexpensive
looking, not a "keeper" but definitely something to skim and mentally file for future
reference.
Exhibit B.4 was generally found to be well designed, easy to read, if a bit too
expensive looking. It was a good example of the form of communication most
seem to prefer: a well-written letter accompanied by a brochure.
Exhibit B.5 was appreciated slightly more by these groups than those in the
DRMP. It continued to be criticized for too much copy, no compelling call to
action, no emotional or visual appeal. The apparent inexpensive nature of the
piece continued to be a plus.
In discussing "celebrity" endorsement, these focus group participants had a
slightly different take on the subject from their DRMP counterparts. DRMP
respondents generally rejected the idea of celebrity, while many LDRP
participants felt that the right celebrity could draw someone to an event who
might not otherwise participate.
"It's silly, but there's something to 'star power'
for people who aren't that well connected to the
community."
11 A few indicated that they knew these statistics already and were much more interested in concrete ways to
change them.
33
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
In all, these lesbians want and expect the same things from any communication that the
DRMP participants did. They want it to succinctly and convincingly tell them
who the organization is and what it stands for,
who is doing the asking,
what's the ask,
who's on the board,
how and where the money is going to be spent,
what are the expected results and how will they be measured.
Message Appeal - Results of the Test Message Survey
The following is an overview and analysis of the responses to the LDRP written
test message survey. (See Appendix 2 for the tabulations and demographics.)
The participants in the final phase of the project were self-selecting, that is, they
were all participants in a prior phase of the research (66% written survey, 18%
focus groups, 10% personal interviews, 4% don't recall) and volunteered to
give their reactions to a variety of themes and messages that, with slight
variations, had been tested earlier in the DRMP.
In reviewing the responses, keep in mind that while 82% of these participants
consider themselves a "donor" (compared to 92% DRMP ), only 32% consider
themselves a "philanthropist" (38% DRMP).
) Responses to Section 1. Participants were presented with a series of
statements and asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed
with each. For ranking purposes, a mean was calculated for all statements.
The statement with which there was the strongest agreement was
Rank Question
1
1.11 When women and girls are empowered, all of society
benefits.
[mean 1.26; DRMP rank 4, mean 1.65] 12
The next most strongly agreed with statements, in rank descending order were:
12 The lower the (mean) number, the more agreement.
34
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
2
1.22 When women are educated they have more choices and
can better take care of themselves.
[mean 1.35; DRMP rank 1, mean 1.30]
3
1.16 Violence, homelessness, child care, poverty,
unemployment, affordable housing and healthcare all have a
disproportionate impact on women.
[mean 1.49; DRMP rank 5, mean 1.65]
4
1.13 Invest in the lives of women and girls and you invest in
the future of the world.
[mean 1.54; DRMP rank 3, mean 1.65]
5
1.09 Economic development for women can change the
world.
[mean 1.56; DRMP rank 6, mean 1.68]
6
1.19 Learning about money is as important for women today as
it was for our mothers to learn to drive and our grandmothers
to secure the right to vote.
[mean 1.63; DRMP rank 2, mean 1.58]
7
1.03 Many problems in the world are due to the inherent
inequality of how women are treated.
[mean 1.76; not ranked in DRMP, mean 2.16]
As was the case in the DRMP, only more so, lesbian respondents to the test
message survey overwhelmingly rejected the statement
1.21: "Feminism is no longer relevant in our society."
[mean 4.52; DRMP mean 3.92]
Other statements about which there was the strongest disagreement included
1.15 There are no women's issues, only society's issues.
[mean 3.37; DRMP mean 3.00]
1.06 Lesbians should use their own money for their own
causes first.
[mean 2.75; DRMP not asked]
1.18 Every woman can be a philanthropist.
[mean 2.68; DRMP mean 2.62]
LDRP written survey respondents showed the same ambivalence as DRMP
written survey participants to the following:
1.23 Women's funds are good stewards of your gift -
balancing immediate support of community projects with
investment in the long-term health of the funds themselves.
[mean 2.00; DRMP mean 2.22]
35
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
)
Responses to Section 2. Participants were again presented with a series
of statements that they were asked to rank, indicating if they found the statement
very meaningful, somewhat meaningful, or not at all meaningful.
One statement out-ranked the others as "very meaningful:"
Rank Question
1
2.4 When we say we support women, we mean all women -
young, old, women with disabilities, lesbians, divorced,
women of color, immigrants - everyone.
[DRMP rank 5]
The next six highest rankings were:
2
2.9 Your gift of time is as valued as money. Get involved in
the things you are passionate about. It will make a difference.
[DRMP rank 1]
3
2.16 95 cents of every dollar you contribute goes directly to
benefit women and girls.
[DRMP rank 6]
4
2.2 95 cents of every dollar you give stays right here,
working in your community to help people you know.
[DRMP rank 7]
5
2.5 Your gift will help us fund innovative, non-traditional
programs designed to help women achieve economic self-
sufficiency and personal power.
[DRMP rank 4]
6
2.10 You don't have to be wealthy to be a donor. If you are
passionate about an issue or cause, give anything you can.
[DRMP rank 2]
7
2.15 Your contribution will make a big difference to lesbian
and gay families.
[Question not asked in DRMP]
The participants found the following not at all meaningful - the top three in
almost precisely the same order as the DRMP.
2.20 To save others from starvation, we must first feed
ourselves.
2.18 Give us your dollars, we'll make change.
2.19 When you donate to a women's fund you help all women
change the status quo, create a new vision of the world,
connect with the forces of change, commit to making a
difference, collaborate with concerned others and celebrate
all life.
2.17 Your donation will make dreams come true for more
lesbians in our community.
[Question not asked in DRMP]
36
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
2.13 Women's funds ensure that your dollars get to where
they're needed most.
) Responses to Section 3. In the final section of the test message survey,
participants were asked to respond to two comprehensive fundraising appeals or
messages. They were asked to indicate if they found each of the messages very
compelling, somewhat compelling, or not at all compelling. They were then
asked to tell, in their own words, what appealed to them the most and the least
about each of the messages. 13
As it did in the DRMP, Appeal A out-polled Appeal B by a wide margin. Forty
five percent (46% DRMP) found Appeal A very compelling, 43% (45%
DRMP) found it somewhat compelling and only 11% (9% DRMP) found it not
at all compelling. One the other hand, only 21% (27% DRMP) found Appeal B
very compelling, 43.2% (31% DRMP) somewhat compelling and 34% (42%
DRMP) not at all compelling.
Appeal A also received high marks for bold writing, understandable statistics
and concept (breaking a $100 contribution down to 28 cents a day), and for
being straightforward, action oriented and graphically eye-catching. It was
criticized for many of the same traits for which it was praised, and for not being
explicit about where the money is going, and about what the women's fund
does and specifically supports. The $100 ask was several times cited as too
high. These responses were consistent with the responses of the DRMP.
Many of the comments about Appeal B were identical to those received in the
DRMP. There were positive comments for its personal, human approach with
which many could personally identify, the final paragraph with its simple facts
and a letter format that compelled many to read. However, many LDRP
respondents - as did DRMP respondents - also found it over-emotional,
manipulative, melodramatic, and contrived. They felt it was vague, conveyed a
sense of helplessness, and was irrelevant to most lesbians.
13 See Exhibit F - Test Messages Survey Instrument.
37
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
Both appeals centered on the same subject or cause (domestic violence/violence
against women) but were dramatically different in tone. 14 As you review the
verbatim responses included in the report (see Appendix 2), keep in mind that
both of the appeals were taken out of their original context and abridged,
rewritten and/or edited to serve the purposes of the test. 15 For the LDRP, each
appeal was altered further to include lesbian-specific language and details.
While several of the respondents liked the fact that lesbians were included by
name in the appeals, others found the mention of sexual orientation gratuitous.
Lesbian readers of these appeals agreed almost completely with their sister
respondents in the DRMP about the following:
Facts should be presented in a bold, clear, concise manner. Copy
should be a quick read, easy to understand. The communication should
capture their attention (or imagination!) with clean, powerful graphics.
Make it easy to read.
Strong personal statements delivered with sincere emotion, stories that
are personal and real are the most powerful. However, overly
emotional, sentimentalized approaches feel manipulative and contrived.
A tone or a presentation that communicates passivity or helplessness is
not compelling.
They want to see evidence of a bad cycle broken, progress made. If
your presentation sets up a problem, demonstrate concretely how their
donation will contribute to the solution. Don't let emotion cloud the
information.
14 The primary objective of this portion of the survey was to test tone.
15 Several of the tangential objections to either of the appeals would have no doubt been eliminated if they
had been presented in their full and original context. Therefore, the authors of those original pieces need not
be unduly concerned about some of the negative comments. When interpreted properly, the rich overall
commentary is insightful and provides strong, clear signals about what lesbian donors, or prospective
donors, wish to see. read and feel.
38
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
"Women are programmed early not to see themselves
as powerful. We must say things creatively in ways
young girls can hear them."
Let smaller donors know that their gifts are appreciated and will
make a difference. These lesbians donors are no different from
other women donors in that they want to know where their
donations (even small ones) are going. Paint a clear picture of their
dollars at work. Be specific, be relevant.
Major Donor Reflections on Lesbian Philanthropy
In addition to answering specific questions, personal interview participants
volunteered additional information. Many were clearly prepared to summarize
their giving experiences and were concerned in particular that more lesbians -
especially those who are financially able - are not giving.
"I know of many professional lesbians (doctors,
lawyers) who can make middle level gifts and not
enough attention is paid to them by non profit
organizations to cultivate them. More attention is paid
to major donors. Women's and gay organizations
haven't focused on mid-level donors and accessed
the number of women who have middle incomes."
"I want to see more lesbians of earned wealth
become major donors - not just those with inherited
wealth."
"I am frustrated with many lesbians who may not
make a lot of money but who don't see the value of
making small gifts even though they believe in the
work of the non profit."
"I was invited to sit on the board of the Women's
Foundation and I looked around and there were all
these lesbians who weren't saying they are lesbians.
When I see lesbians serving on high-powered
straight boards and not on those of lesbian
organizations I wonder what that's about."
"When I asked lesbians for a thousand dollars, they
responded 'I don't know if I can'. It's a mind set.
Where there's a will, there's a way. My house
cleaner pledges and she makes $24,000 a year!"
39
ORDINARY MAGIC
KEY FINDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1998
"This current year, the women's foundation received
no applications for funding lesbian causes. I am
frustrated by lesbians whose organizations can
qualify but can't get their act together to apply."
"I am embarrassed by the low level of giving in our
own lesbian community. My spouse and I have
stopped giving fundraising events in our home
because the turnout is so low."
"Women often feel they have no money, even when
they do."
"I give 10% of my pre-tax income and it drives me
crazy that other lesbians don't give. If lesbians knew
how few of them gave and therefore, how important
their gift would be, maybe they'd give more. Giving
makes me feel more alive because I've taken more
responsibility for future successes."
Nothing could have more eloquently reinforced the notion that every gift is important
than the response of one anonymous test message participant. Her survey indicated
that she is over the age of 55 with a annual household income of less than $10,000.
She considers herself neither a donor nor a philanthropist. Yet tucked inside her survey
were three one dollar bills to "help us with our important work."
40
Women's Funding Network Lesbian Donor Research Project
Part IV
Conclusions and
Recommendations
ORDINARY MAGIC
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SEPTEMBER 1998
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The Lesbian Donor Research Project was designed chiefly to: 1) obtain new
information specifically about the personal characteristics of lesbians, their
giving habits and their likely response to various giving messages and
mediums, 2) develop general information about lesbian audiences that can be
used to create messages about women's funds, about projects and programs
benefiting women and girls, lesbians and gays, and 3) develop and test
successful fundraising messages that will help WFN, its member funds,
lesbian/gay and other public foundations to craft successful appeals to lesbian
audiences.
In accomplishing these objectives, the study revealed some very simple, very
basic, but extremely important things that women funds and other philanthropic
organizations - especially those who are not already successfully serving
lesbians - will need to keep in mind if they want to successfully cultivate
lesbian donors.
Why Lesbians Give to Women's Funds
In General
The lesbians in this study give to women's funds for nearly identical reasons as
do other women. They give to women's funds because
they clearly understand and believe both in the mission and in the
tangible work of the organization,
they have empathy for the causes, projects or programs a women's
fund supports,
they trust the fund's leadership and judgment about what projects to
support and how to support them,
they understand the strength of collective, targeted giving, i.e., their
dollars are more powerful, their giving more leveraged (rather than
diluted) when combined with others,
they were asked to give.
41
ORDINARY MAGIC
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SEPTEMBER 1998
In addition to the above, in making giving decisions, the lesbians in this study
place great importance on how lesbian/gay friendly an organization is, i.e., not
merely tolerant, but inclusive and embracing of diversity of all kinds, including
of sexual orientation.
Both focus group participants and the written survey respondents indicated that
they place a greater emphasis on the mission of the organization and less on
their own personal involvement. In other words, the lesbians who participated
in this study did not seem to feel a need to be personally involved in an
organization before considering a gift to nearly the same degree that DRMP
participants did, as long as they believed in the organization's mission. In
addition, there are indications that these lesbians place a somewhat higher
priority on funding organizations and funds benefiting women and girls. (See
Tables 2 and 3, page 18 and Table 5, page 23.)
Participants in the focus groups and personal interviews also indicated that -
having been marginalized as individuals - when it comes to pooling resources,
and giving collectively to something through a single source they understand the
value of federated giving in ways that other women may not. In this sense,
"federated" giving is not seen as a mere convenience, but as a way to put more
clout behind the gift.
Having said that, we note that in and of itself understanding the value of
federated giving as a way to leverage the smaller gift wouldn't be reason
enough alone to give to a women's fund and that lesbian giving to women's
funds lags significantly behind their giving to general charitable causes, political
candidates and/or issues, and lesbian/gay causes.
Why Lesbians Don't Give to Women's Funds
D In general. The lesbians in this study do not give to women's funds
because
they were not asked, at least not in a way to which they could relate,
42
ORDINARY MAGIC
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SEPTEMBER 1998
their financial resources are limited or they perceive them to be limited
and they have other priorities for their giving and/or they do not feel that
their small gift would be valued,
they prefer to give directly to a project or program,
the fund soliciting the gift does not acknowledge or serve lesbian
needs/issues, is not lesbian/gay friendly or otherwise inclusive of those
with different sexual orientations, or does not appear to be committed to
cultural and/or ethnic diversity.
) Understanding the mission of women's funds. Compared to the
DRMP non-donor participants, the non-donor participants in this study seem to
have no better, or only a slightly better, understanding of what a women's fund
is and does, or how it is distinguished from any number of other organizations
that benefit women and girls.
In comparison to the DRMP participants, when asked if they were aware of a
women's fund in their area, about 45% responded positively (versus 58%
DRMP). However, only slightly less than 19% could actually name a bona fide
women's fund.
Reaching Lesbian Donors
) Does your organization really want to? An organization wishing to
attract lesbian donors must first decide that it truly wants to do so. By that we
mean it requires an organizational willingness to place importance on identifying
and then actually serving lesbian needs and issues.
) How does your organization actually serve lesbians? If, for
example, you are a lesbian/gay community fund, simply having the word
"lesbian" in your name does not automatically mean that you are perceived to be
serving the needs of lesbians. You must clearly demonstrate how you do this in
tangible ways. Women's funds that are not specifically or exclusively serving
lesbians as part of their stated mission perhaps have an even more difficult task.
However, these funds can easily demonstrate their commitment to serve all
43
ORDINARY MAGIC
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SEPTEMBER 1998
women, including lesbians, by highlighting lesbian grant beneficiaries and
continuing to project a lesbian-inclusive identity.
I
Points of entry. The lesbian participants in this study expressed some clear
preferences for purchasing tickets to, and attending, social events, particularly
with their peers. And when they look around the room they are asking the same
question nearly everyone else does: "Are there others here like me?"
Message Development
The Lesbian Donor Research Project provides the WFN and its member funds,
as well as lesbian and gay community funds and other public foundations with a
wealth of information about lesbian donor motivations and preferences that can
be used to craft messages and appeals that will have resonance. When crafting
those messages, it will be crucial to keep several key points in mind. The
advice given in the corresponding section in the DRMP is no less applicable
here. It is repeated below, incorporating specific references to lesbian
audiences.
First and foremost, it is clear from these findings that there is no one single
perfect profile of a lesbian donor, large or small, to a women's fund. Lesbians
are no less diverse in background, age, race/ethnicity, occupation, income and
education than are their heterosexual sisters. There are many striking
commonalties, but "one size does not fit all."
While many lesbian non-donors cited lack of financial resources as a reason for
not giving to women's funds, a slightly larger number also indicated that they
hadn't been asked. That might be interpreted as they hadn't been asked in ways
that directly spoke to their issues and concerns. 16 Before you begin to craft
lesbian-directed messages, or to build expectations for increasing lesbian
donations to your fund, be sure that you have identified in your mission and
your programming the ways in which you serve lesbian issues and needs. If
you presently do not serve the needs of lesbians, is the organization committed
to doing so? How will you concretely demonstrate that commitment?
16
See page 22. Reasons For Not Giving to Women's Funds.
44
ORDINARY MAGIC
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SEPTEMBER 1998
Remember that actions always speak louder than words. Above all, don't be
token or gratuitous in your inclusion of lesbian themes. Insincerity is usually
obvious, and almost always punished with doubt. (See Test Message
Tabulations, Section 3 of the Test Message Written Survey in Appendix 2.)
If you are going to talk the talk, you must be willing to walk the walk.
You also must be prepared to clearly articulate your commitment in several
different ways. If you are asking for lesbian dollars, your case must state the
benefits simply and compellingly and in ways that signal your understanding
of, and affinity with, your prospects' inherent diversity as well as their causes
and concerns.
Women's funds that are already strongly lesbian-identified will want to take a
closer look at, and craft messages that speak to, two things: 1) the self-
perception on the part of many lesbians that they do not have adequate financial
resources to become a donor, and 2) the high priority the participants in all
phases of this study placed on giving to organizations that address lesbian/gay
civil rights, equal rights and social justice and equal rights for women.
Third, do not expect that large numbers of lesbians will flock to your doors, at
least not immediately, even if your fund is solidly lesbian-identified. Myths and
misperceptions die hard and your organization must be prepared to tell its
stories again and again. There is an old maxim in the advertising agency
business that just when the public is beginning to catch onto your client's logo,
tagline and, more importantly, what it stands for, the client gets bored with it all
and wants to change it. Count on continuing to deliver consistent messages to
lesbians or any other targeted audience over a long period of time.
Last, don't try to be all things to all women, and recognize that there will be
many lesbians who will never give to a women's fund that does not exclusively
serve lesbians. Separate what you can change from what you can't, what you
can do differently (e.g., your communications strategy) from who you are. Let
your messages reflect your core strengths, and deliver a promise you can keep.
45