Giving Europe Insights on Methodology for Comparative Research on Philanthropy from PGPE and Beyond PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 René Bekkers ERNOP Research Chair Director, Center for Philanthropic Studies VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands R.Bekkers@vu.nl

PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Research Questions How large are differences in philanthropy (incidence, amounts, causes) between nations in Europe? How can these differences be explained? Today specifically: What can we learn from the PGPE survey?

PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 What we have… Lots of data on volunteering, but much less on charitable giving Several datasets on giving using Different definitions of philanthropy Different questionnaire modules to measure philanthropy Different survey methods

PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 We’re in big trouble. How many people report donations to various causes varies from one dataset to another. Even differences in giving within the same country vary from one dataset to another. Finally, differences between countries are explained by different variables in the two datasets.

PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014

What now? Let’s start all over again. Do it better. PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 What now? Let’s start all over again. Do it better. And call it Giving Europe. PGPE is helping us in building a high quality Giving Europe study.

PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014

Prospects for Data Access PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Prospects for Data Access Tax data: legal definitions, thresholds, privacy issues Survey data on corporate philanthropy difficult to gather Foundations even more difficult to get access to Getting survey data on households least problematic  let’s do this!

What we need… New data on giving, using: PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 What we need… New data on giving, using: A clear definition of philanthropy. A validated, cross-nationally adequate instrument to measure philanthropy. One single method of data collection; online is the only feasible option.

Definitions Should be operationalized. PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Definitions Should be operationalized. Definitions should identify a clearly delimited set of phenomena Easy way out: Exclude memberships and fees. Exclude informal giving. Avoid the word ‘voluntary’.

Churches, charities, foundations 9 October 2014 Conceptual model Source Channel Destination Donor Organization Cause Money Services Households, individuals, corporations Churches, charities, foundations Groups, Ideals PGPE Conference, Warsaw

The questionnaire should identify PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 The questionnaire should identify Units of analysis: individuals, AND/OR households, OR foundations, OR corporations Channels: churches, charities, foundations, other nonprofit organizations Destinations: causes and services Resources: money, goods, labor

European Social Survey PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 E1-12 a) CARD 43 For each of the voluntary organisations I will now mention, please use this card to tell me whether any of these things apply to you now or in the last 12 months, and, if so, which. E1-12 b) Do you have personal friends within this organisation? a) CODE ALL THAT APPLY FOR EACH ORGANISATION b) None Member Participated Donated money Volun-teered Personal friends? E1 .…Firstly, a sports club or club for out-door activities? Yes No DK 1 2 3 4 8 E2 … an organisation for cultural or hobby activities? Goed: hele range van mogelijke organisaties Slecht (voor geefgedrag): categorieen organisaties niet optimaal voor het onderzoeken van donaties

FROM THE LIKELY TRUE VALUES PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 WARNING DATA FROM THESE MEASURES MAY BE *VERY FAR* FROM THE LIKELY TRUE VALUES

Questionnaires on household giving PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Questionnaires on household giving The Gold Standard: the ‘Method + Area Module’ (e.g., GINPS) Incomplete coverage: ‘Area’ (ESS2002, EB 62.2) Severely limited: (Very) ‘Short’ “Methodology is Destiny”: shorter questionnaires yield (strong) underestimates of giving volume and bias parameter estimates Source: Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2006). ‘To Give or Not to Give…That’s the Question’. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35 (3): 533‐540.

Donors per sector (%, ESS) 9 October 2014 NL US a religious or church organization 19 humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants 20 5 environmental protection, peace or animal rights 23 science, education, or teachers and parents 2 cultural or hobby activities 4 3 sports club or club for outdoor activities 8 social club, club for the young, the retired/ elderly, women political party trade union 1 business, professional, or farmers’ organization consumer or automobile organization any other voluntary organization Donates money to at least one sector 45 29 PGPE Conference, Warsaw

Donors per sector in the Netherlands (%) 9 October 2014 ESS GINPS a religious or church organization 19 39 humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants 20 21 environmental protection, (peace) or animal rights 23 (7) health NA 13 science, education, or teachers and parents 2 cultural or hobby activities 4 sports club or club for outdoor activities 8 5 social club, club for the young, the retired/ elderly, women 3 10 political party trade union business, professional, or farmers’ organization 1 consumer or automobile organization any other voluntary organization Donates money to at least one sector 45 82 PGPE Conference, Warsaw

Giving is under-reported in the ESS 9 October 2014 Direct Q Matrix No 88% Yes 12% 97% 2947 307 3% 13 89 Cross tabulation of ESS direct question on political giving and marking ‘donated’ for ‘political party’ in the matrix question (US+NL) PGPE Conference, Warsaw

Correlates of giving ESS GINPS Age 35-65 1.19 1.13 Age>65 1.82 ** 9 October 2014 ESS GINPS Age 35-65 1.19 1.13 Age>65 1.82 ** 0.80 Secondary education 1.60 1.05 Tertiary education 3.50 1.30 Big city 0.89 0.55 Suburb 0.79 (*) 0.75 Generalized social trust 1.20 1.34 Right wing political self-placement 1.25 * 1.50 Volunteered last year 3.33 1.76 Coefficients in bold are significantly different from each other (p<.05) PGPE Conference, Warsaw

What we don’t know… PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 How are France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Switzerland doing? Eastern European countries? How much is donated to charity? How do countries differ in the composition of philanthropy and characteristics of donors? Where do all these country differences come from?

Donors per sector in the Netherlands (%) 9 October 2014 EB GINPS a religious or church organization 29 39 humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants 41 21 environmental protection, (peace) or animal rights 40 (7) Patients organization [and health] 30 [13] Education (arts, culture) 13 2 Recreational organization [and sports] 20 5 Leisure organization for the elderly 3 NA Rights for the elderly political party trade union 4 business, professional, or farmers’ organization 1 consumer or automobile organization any other voluntary organization 7 Donates money to at least one sector 81 82 PGPE Conference, Warsaw

Giving is likely to be overreported in EB 9 October 2014 5% report giving to a ‘political party or organization’; but only 2.5% is a member and only a fraction donate 40% report giving to an environmental organization; at best, 28% is a member Humanitarian aid is way too high (41%) PGPE Conference, Warsaw

Correlates of giving EB GINPS Big city 0.60 * 0.55 ** Suburb 0.78 0.75 9 October 2014 EB GINPS Big city 0.60 * 0.55 ** Suburb 0.78 0.75 (*) Age 35-65 2.41 1.13 Age>65 2.66 0.80 Secondary education 1.85 1.05 Tertiary education 1.56 1.30 Generalized social trust 1.21 1.34 Right wing political self-placement 0.87 1.50 Volunteered last year 3.33 *** 1.76 Coefficients in bold are significantly different from each other (p<.05) PGPE Conference, Warsaw

Why do countries differ? 9 October 2014 EB ESS Individual level variables YES Country level variables NO Country level variance 3.27% 5.45% 9.97% Secondary education 1.321** 1.305** 1.491 1.555** % Secondary education 0.031** 25.744* Generalized trust 1.075 1.109 1.120** Mean Generalized trust 2.096** 1.098NS Observations 16,279 32,905 Countries 17 PGPE Conference, Warsaw

What we want… Giving Europe, using: PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 What we want… Giving Europe, using: A clear definition of philanthropy. A validated, cross-nationally adequate instrument to measure philanthropy, based on GINPS. One single method of data collection; online is the only feasible option.

PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Building blocks

EB73.4 Question Goed: hele range van mogelijke organisaties PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Goed: hele range van mogelijke organisaties Slecht (voor geefgedrag): categorieen organisaties niet optimaal voor het onderzoeken van donaties

PGPE Question PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Please look at the list of organisations and associations again and tell me, for which of them did you do any voluntary work in the past 12 months. By voluntary work I mean spending time helping charities or associations WITHOUT BEING PAID for it. Goed: hele range van mogelijke organisaties Slecht (voor geefgedrag): categorieen organisaties niet optimaal voor het onderzoeken van donaties

PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Membership: PGPE vs EB73.4

Volunteering: PGPE vs EB73.4 PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Volunteering: PGPE vs EB73.4

Membership and/or volunteering PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Membership and/or volunteering

PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Giving: PGPE vs GWP

Giving: PGPE vs GWP vs EB vs ESS PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Giving: PGPE vs GWP vs EB vs ESS

Giving, specifically to help people in need PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Giving, specifically to help people in need

Religious giving by affiliation PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Religious giving by affiliation

Giving in past year and in scenarios PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Giving in past year and in scenarios

C02_g I feel sorry for other people when they are having problems. PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 ITEM CARE RECIPROCITY HEDONISM C02_g I feel sorry for other people when they are having problems. ,678 ,271 ,024 C02_j I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. ,741 ,174 ,019 C02_o People should help those who are less fortunate. ,699 ,270 ,053 C02_r I feel it is my duty to give money to charitable causes. ,633 ,039 -,072 C02_s Helping people in trouble is very important to me. ,768 ,207 -,013 B01_a People who help others will not be alone in time of need. ,104 ,677 ,015 B01_b People should do favours for each other without keeping track of who owes whom. ,178 ,684 -,034 B01_d A person who has received help from someone should help others. ,192 ,582 ,083 B01_f It is human nature to cooperate* with others. ,668 -,038 B01_h Working together with others ALWAYS brings more benefits than acting on your own ,143 ,609 -,017 C02_b People need to look after themselves rather than worry about others. -,093 -,025 ,661 C02_c I do whatever brings me pleasure here and now, even at the cost of some long-ter ,011 ,748 C02_p I'm more concerned with what happens to me in the short run than in the long run ,074 ,055 ,680

Correlates of giving Linear probability model (standardized β coeffs) PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Correlates of giving Linear probability model (standardized β coeffs)

PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Correlates of giving to help people in need Linear probability model (standardized β coeffs)

PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Correlates of hypothetical giving in scenarios OLS model (standardized β coeffs)

PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Correlates of hypothetical giving in scenarios OLS model (standardized β coeffs)

PGPE Conference, Warsaw 9 October 2014 Thanks, says René Bekkers Director Center for Philanthropic Studies VU University Amsterdam r.bekkers@vu.nl Twitter: @renebekkers http://renebekkers.wordpress.com

Correlates of giving ESS GINPS Age 35-65 1.16 1.09 Age>65 1.59 ** 9 October 2014 ESS GINPS Age 35-65 1.16 1.09 Age>65 1.59 ** 0.64 * Secondary education 1.71 1.07 Tertiary education 3.84 1.35 Big city 0.97 0.56 Suburb 0.84 0.80 Catholic 1.25 (*) 2.18 Protestant 2.02 2.27 Other Christian 1.21 0.46 Other religion 0.90 4.66 Church attendance (times per year) 1.01 Generalized social trust 1.19 1.33 Right wing political self-placement 1.12 1.40 Volunteering 3.15 1.55 PGPE Conference, Warsaw