Generosity Gender: Lois A. Buntz

L O I S A.
B U N T Z
Generosity
and Gender
Philanthropic Models for Women
Donors and the Fund Development
Professionals Who Support Them
Generosity and Gender
“Lois Buntz understands that the key to activating the power of women as donors
lies in respecting them as people who are eager for the joy and well-being that
giving creates. Weaving diversity and inclusion throughout the text, she truly
centers the unique experiences of women philanthropists as she shows a way to
engage them fruitfully.”
—Julie Castro Abrams, Founder and CEO, How Women Lead
“An informative and insightful philanthropic resource for those dedicated to

empowerment of women and girls through gender-focused philanthropy. Generosity
and Gender is a must-read guide to engaging women in fundraising. Research and
stories from numerous women philanthropists from the frontlines will empower,
inspire, and grow your current programs.
Bravo Lois Buntz!”
—Dawn Oliver Wiand, President and CEO, Iowa Women’s Foundation
“The Women’s Funding Network had a tagline for decades: ‘Changing the Face of
Philanthropy.’ Alongside fundraising from women, grant-making decisions made
by women, and investing in women, that face clearly and permanently changed.
Lois’s book clearly lays out the overlapping factors that influenced this trajectory;
why women give; and most importantly, how to best engage with this powerful
and growing force.”
—Cynthia Nimmo, Former President, Women’s Funding Network and Gender
Equity Advisor
“Women’s power to move money differently in the world is profound, and Lois
Buntz’s Gender and Generosity checks all the boxes about how this gender difference
is manifesting in philanthropy. Readers of her book will become deeply familiar
with the names and faces that power women’s giving, as well as techniques for
successfully working with women donors and their allies in carrying out bold
strategies for a better world.”
—Kiersten Marek, Founder, Philanthropy Women
“Generosity and Gender explores the evolution of women’s philanthropy and

captures the experiences of women donors who birthed and others that contributed
to its expanded development. As a founder of this movement, I am grateful to Lois
Buntz for writing this book, that many can now read and share as a resource and
guide for fundraisers and women donors. Blending the best practices in fundraising
with research of how women give, this book offers professionals and organizations
an opportunity to create new and exciting partnerships with women. Now is the
time for fundraisers to cultivate the ever-growing philanthropic capacity of women,
support their passions, and help align their investments with causes. Thank you,
Lois, for this inspiring contribution to the field of women’s philanthropy.”
—Helen LaKelly Hunt, Author, Co-Founder of Women Moving Millions
“Lois Buntz has created an insightful, comprehensive guide on how to partner with
women philanthropists to advance causes important to them. Fund development
professionals across many disciplines will benefit from her review of relevant
research, along with valuable real-world scenarios.”
—Kathleen R. Krusie, SVP Community Physician Network Chief Administrative
Officer
“Lois Buntz in Generosity and Gender has dug into a story about the unfolding
of new norms and stories and the significance of women donors using their
resources for communities and for change rather than for the traditional rewards
of recognition. Understanding women’s giving better is a key to pursuing more
ambitious and progressive impact in the future which makes this book a must
have!”
—Stephanie Clohesy, Consultant on Philanthropy Strategies, Design and Impact
“This book is a great tool to engage our peers in philanthropy. We need more
analysis that can lift up and recognize the impact of women in the philanthropic
sector, and especially women of color, who are projected to be the majority of all
women in the U.S. in the next few decades. I appreciate the expertise that Lois
brings to the table, as philanthropy has a lot of learning to do.”
—Amalia Brindis Delgado, Associate VP, Strategy, Hispanics in Philanthropy
“Generosity and Gender addresses the fundamental issues of how and why women
give. The history, philosophy, economics, and sociology of this phenomenon are
woven throughout the many stories that Lois Buntz has included in this text,
and her story telling is compelling. The relevance of these stories is dramatically
illustrated as we witness new ways of giving and more history being made by
women like MacKenzie Scott. As women continue to dominate the philanthropic
landscape, more of these stories will need to be told.”
—Sally Mason, Ph.D., President Emerita of the University of Iowa
“As a director of a non-profit that supports women in arts and culture, fundraising
is always on my mind. It is so refreshing to see positive data about the capacity of
women to give back. This is a wonderful resource for learning to engage women
donors in ways that will enhance donor loyalty and involvement. Giving to an
organization is so much more than a financial gift, and this book provides tools
for making an ask based on quality relationships and timing.”
—Jordan Young, Executive Director, Women’s International Study Center
Lois A. Buntz
Generosity
and Gender
Philanthropic Models for Women
Donors and the Fund Development
Professionals Who Support Them
Lois A. Buntz
Lois Buntz Consulting LLC
Cedar Rapids, IA, USA
ISBN 978-3-030-90379-4 ISBN 978-3-030-90380-0 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2022, corrected publication 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my mother, LaVern M. Faas, who gave selflessly to others.
Preface
What motivates people to give their time, talents, and treasures to benefit
others? Why are some individuals abundantly generous and others can barely
lend a dime to a worthy cause or help a person in need? How do life experi-
ences, education, age, gender, or ethnicity impact an individual’s decision to
practice generosity and act philanthropically? These questions combined with
an ever-present curiosity about the changing role of women in our society
prompted my exploration of women’s philanthropy and the writing of this
book.
Today, women have the philanthropic power to change the world. They are
becoming more educated, advancing to leadership positions in all economic,
political, and social sectors, acquiring an unprecedented level of wealth, and
demonstrating their desire and ability to have a seat at the table of change.
The recent news of MacKenzie Scott’s $8.5 billion one-time donations to
hundreds of charities has shaken up the philanthropy world in a good way.
Although Scott is not the first woman to give a large gift, it is by all counts
the largest demonstration of philanthropy by a woman. She has stepped
into a sacred space—giving publicly, big and boldly, carefully researching her
choices, selecting traditional and nontraditional nonprofits, universities and
grassroots organizations, and giving the recipients maximum flexibility to do
good. She trusted the experts who do the work to know how to use her gift
in the most effective manner. And Scott says she is not done.
I began to explore the concept of women’s philanthropy after a forty-year
career working in nonprofits, education, and fundraising. My early years were
vii
viii Preface
spent in direct service work as a clinical social worker helping children and
families in need. I transitioned from direct services to teaching social work
at a small private college and a Big Ten university, integrating textbook theo-
ries with my practice experience. After several years, I returned to work at a
social service agency, transitioned into administration, and eventually became
a CEO at several nonprofits including a mid-sized United Way. It was United
Way’s Women United initiative (women’s giving program) that sparked my
interest in women as donors and I became a charter member of our local
Women United program.
During my career I have met hundreds of women, some of them talented
influential leaders, others who were quiet workers, committed volunteers, or
energetic community advocates. No matter what their status, vocation or
interests, the common thread in all of their lives was their desire to give back.
Women are generous givers and they have demonstrated this for centuries.
Today, I consult with a wide range of nonprofits, advising leaders and
fund development professionals about major gifts and endowment programs,
while also providing seminars on women’s philanthropy strategies at local and
national conferences, including the Association of Fundraising Professionals
and United Ways.
The topic of women’s philanthropy is filled with a rich history, inspiring
stories, and solid research that acknowledges what many women and fund
development professionals knew, but were unable to document—women
practice philanthropy differently than men. They give more, have different
motivations, and desired outcomes. As I began to collect stories from women
philanthropists, delved into the research provided by the Women’s Philan-
thropy Institute at Indiana University, and reflected on my own work in the
nonprofit sector, I realized that many fund development professionals are not
aware of the potential of women donors. They continue to use traditional
fundraising strategies that don’t actively engage women and rarely apply a
diversity, inclusion, and equity lens.
Other business and social sectors are acknowledging the wealth capacity of
women as customers, consumers, and clients. Recognizing that women are
major decision-makers in many aspects of daily life, they are using women
as spokespersons, featuring them in marketing campaigns, and tailoring
their social media strategies to specifically attract women. The philanthropy
community needs to hold up a mirror and ask, what we are doing to partner
with women and invite them in?
Women’s philanthropy has moved through a series of historical movements
or waves, the first beginning with the suffragists, a second wave between
1960 and 1990 when the women’s movement and other social changes
Preface ix
prompted the creation of new organizations including the Women’s Funding

Network, Women’s Philanthropy Institute, and Giving Circles. A third wave
developed when more women began to give bigger gifts through Women
Moving Millions, major university foundations, United Ways, nonprofits,
and women’s foundations. Now, we are embarking on the fourth wave of
women’s philanthropy.
This phase will include a long predicted intergenerational wealth transfer,
an exploding generation of entrepreneurs, a younger and more diverse donor
base, new institutional models that are not third sector nonprofits, a societal
reset based on global disasters including COVID-19, escalating social move-
ments, and technological advances that will astound and challenge us. Nearly
half of the world’s population is women; a large percentage of fundraising
professionals are women; and the number of women donors is growing daily.
It is time to acknowledge that women will have a major influence on the
future of philanthropy and begin by learning more about how women give,
how to engage as many women as possible, and how to ask women to step
into philanthropy and step up.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, USA Lois A. Buntz
The original version of the book was revised: Corrections suggested by the author have been
incorporated. The correction to the book is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-
0_16
Acknowledgments
Writing is a solitary process; creating a book is a collaborative endeavor.

It includes significant supporters, advocates, other authors, content experts,
researchers, colleagues, and friends. It begins with an idea—a concept that
blossoms over time into a multiyear project sustained by patience, pride, and
tenacity. There are countless people to thank for their input, contributions,
and assistance in the creation of Generosity and Gender.
More than seventy women shared stories, information, insights, laughs and
tears as they bravely gave me permission to listen and record their experiences.
Beginning with several local women philanthropists who agreed to meet with
me when this book was purely a dream, they encouraged me to keep going.
My sincere thanks to Dee Ann McIntyre, Kate Minette, Nancy Evans, Kathy
Eno, Terri Christoffersen, Cheryle Mitvalsky, Suzy DeWolf, Mary Westbrook,
Kathy Good, Mary Klinger, Johanna Abernathy, Lura McBride, Lila Igram,
Sally Mason, Lynette Marshall, Diane Ramsey, Tiffany O’Donnell, Salma
Igram, Lijun Chadima, and Julianne Smith.
So many professional colleagues from my career as well as esteemed
women who had extensive knowledge and experience stepped up and offered
their advice, counsel, ideas, editing, and support. Many of these women
work at women’s foundations or within women’s networks. Others have
been founders and early pioneers in the field of women’s philanthropy.
Dawn Oliver Wiand, Executive Director, Iowa Women’s Foundation; Roslyn
Dawson Thompson, former CEO, Texas Women’s Foundation; Sunny
Fischer and K. Sujata, former CEOs, Chicago Foundation for Women;
xi
xii Acknowledgments
Lee Roper-Batker, former CEO of the Minnesota Women’s Foundation;

Lauren Casteel, CEO the Women’s Foundation of Colorado; Ana Oliveira,
CEO, New York Women’s Foundation; Jacki Zehner; Christine Grumm;
Tracy Gary; Cynthia Nimmo, former CEO, Women’s Funding Network;
Sarah Haacke Byrd, CEO, Women Moving Millions; Jeannie Infante Sager,
CEO, Women Philanthropy Institute; Andrea Pactor, former interim director
Women’s Philanthropy Institute; Yolanda F. Johnson, founder, Women of
Color in Fundraising and Philanthropy; Kiersten Marek, founder, Philan-
thropy Women; Jordan Young, Executive Director, Women’s International
Study Center; Stephanie Clohesy, consultant; Amalia Brindis Delgado, Asso-
ciate VP, Strategy, Hispanics in Philanthropy; Melanie R. Brown, Gates
Foundation; Gretchen Buhlig, CEO, Arizona State University Foundation;
Kathy Krusie, SVP, Community Physician Network; Linda DeWolf, founder,
GoPhilanthropic Foundation; Shannon Duval, Senior Vice President of
Philanthropy and Deputy Chief Philanthropy Officer at CommonSpirit
Health; Carla Harris, VP, Morgan Stanley; Laura Kohler, Senior Vice Pres-
ident, Human Resources, Stewardship and Sustainability, Kohler Company;
Karen Herman; Nancy Hayes; Mary Lynn Myers; Julie Castro Abrams, CEO,
How Women Lead; Michelle Branch, former Volunteer Chair of Women
United Global Leadership Council; Hong Hoang, founder of CHANGE;
and a very special thanks to Diane Ballweg, Abigail Disney and especially
Helen LaKelly Hunt.
A huge and special thanks to two women who have paved the road in
women’s philanthropy and still support any new recruit. Martha Taylor and
Sondra Shaw Hardy have been supporters and advocates from the early days,
reading chapters, suggesting contacts, and just being there. Thank you both
from the bottom of my heart.
My editors Suzanne Kelsey and Hope Burwell. Suzanne graciously
accepted this task as my first editor and coach. When she could no longer
continue to work on the project, the hand-off to Hope Burwell was seam-
less. In the world of technology, editing can happen anywhere and anytime.
Hope and I took that concept to heart. We exchanged hundreds of pages as
she edited from her home in The Netherlands, answered countless questions,
offered suggestions, and made the narrative better. Charles Crawley, thanks
for your help with technical editing of the citations. Tom Anderson, thanks
for putting me in touch with the publishing world.
Tula Weis, Supraja Ganesh and John Justin Thomyyar, my editors at
Palgrave Macmillan, you have been extremely helpful and took a chance on
this endeavor. Thank you for answering all of my questions and supporting
my work.
Acknowledgments xiii
All of my colleagues at United Way, Association of Fundraising Profes-

sionals, fellow board members, and women within my professional networks,
thank you for your support. My dearest women friends, including my two
book groups, you asked regularly about the progress of this book and kept
my spirits alive with your interest.
My family is filled with wonderful inspirational women, from my 93-year-
old mother to my one-year-old granddaughter and all the women in between.
We are fortunate to be supported by wonderful men who encourage us to
be our best. Thank you all! Finally, and most importantly, a very special
thank you to my husband Bob, who constantly supported and encouraged
me, and was so patient and understanding as I spent countless hours in
my home office. You are my soulmate in this journey of life and have my
unending love and gratitude.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
Definitions: Generosity and Philanthropy 2
Gender 3
Women’s Philanthropy 3
Initiatives versus Programs 3
Chapter Summaries 3
Bibliography 6
2 Awareness: The New Faces of Philanthropy 9
Bibliography 11
3 Awareness Built Social Movements: The Three Waves
of Women’s Philanthropy 13
The First Wave 13
The Second Wave 15
Awareness Built Networks 17
The Third Wave 19
Helen LaKelly Hunt 22
Women Moving Millions—Voice, Values, Vision 24
Questions and Suggestions for Fundraisers 25
Bibliography 27
4 Awareness: How Women Give 29
Connections 30
xv
xvi Contents
Using Your Story 32

Diane Ballweg 33
Identifying Interests and Values 35
Dee Ann McIntyre 36
Tracy Gary 38
Create Change 39
Lila Igram 40
Influencing the Next Generation 41
Karen Herman 42
Giving Counsel: Mentoring 43
Carla Harris 44
Bibliography 45
5 Assessing Your Donors 49
Wealth Acquisition and Giving History 49
Inherited Wealth—Abigail Disney 51
Assessing the Origin of Wealth 53
For Better or Worse, for Richer or Poorer—Married Wealth 54
Philanthropic Decision-Making Between Couples 55
Working with Married Couples 56
Working with Single Women: Widowed, Never Married,
Divorced 57
A Survivor’s Story 58
Divorced and Single Women 60
Earned Wealth—Jacki Zehner 61
Assessing Women as Prospects 62
Bibliography 67
6 Assessment: Is Your Organization Ready for a Women’s
Philanthropy Initiative? 71
Women’s Philanthropy—Unique and Integrated 74
The Elements of an Assessment 77
What to Ask? Vision, Values, Mission, Culture 78
Who to Ask—Key Stakeholders 81
How to Ask? Getting the Information You Need 82
Questions for Community Stakeholders 84
Questions for Women Donors/Volunteers 85
The Fundraiser’s Role and Self-Evaluation 86
Bibliography 88
Contents xvii
7 Alignment: Helping Donors Find Their Passion 89

Charitable Giving and Life Satisfaction: Does Gender
Matter? 89
What Do Women Care About? 90
Exercise for Values Clarification and Decision-Making 91
Journey from Transaction to Transformation 93
A Transformational Gift 94
The Surprise of Giving 96
Understanding Wealth Capacity 96
Bibliography 100
8 Action: Making It Happen 103
Traditional Model of Organizational Development 103
Organizational Life Stages 104
Early Stage: 5224GOOD—Grassroots and Local 106
Adult Stage: Dartmouth College—Mature and Integrated 108
Renewal Stage: Iowa Women’s Foundation—Adaptation
and Re-Invention 109
Women’s Philanthropy versus Traditional Program
Development Models 111
Vision and Mission 111
Goals and Objectives 112
Strategy and Structure 114
Metrics 116
Evaluation 116
Elements of High Impact Nonprofits 117
Bibliography 118
9 Action: The ASK 121
The Changing State of Philanthropy 121
The Goal—Purpose and Money 123
The Process—Preparation and Planning 124
The Meeting—Setting, Story, Words 126
Thanks and Stewardship 129
The Debrief 129
Bibliography 131
10 Acknowledgment: Myths, Mystery and Magic 133
The Purpose of Acknowledgment 134
Myth—Women Want What Men Want 136
Connection 137
Shared Interests 137
xviii Contents
Engaging Family and Friends 138

Information and Results 139
Opportunity 139
Mystery—Making Acknowledgment Special 141
Magic—Memorable and Impactful Thanks 143
Recognition Creates More Philanthropy 144
Thanking an Inspirational Woman 145
Suggestions for Acknowledging Women 146
Bibliography 147
11 Achievements: Healthcare, Higher Education,
Environment 149
Healthcare 149
Major Donors 150
Women Leaders 151
Community-Based Programs 153
Family Caregiver’s Center 153
United Way’s Healthcare Initiative for Uninsured Women 155
Mental Health 156
Suggestions for Fundraisers Working in Healthcare 156
Higher Education 158
Arizona State University 160
The 4W Initiative—Working Within an Institutional Setting 161
Suggestions for Fundraisers Working in Higher Education 162
Environment 163
Winona LaDuke 165
Suggestions for Fundraisers Working in Environment 167
Bibliography 168
12 Achievements: Women Investing in Business
and Leadership 171
Investing in Women-Owned Businesses 171
Suggestions for Fundraisers—Creating Partnerships
with Women Investors 174
Women in Leadership—Corporate Boards—How Women
Lead 174
Developing Women’s Leadership Through
Training—Women Lead Change 176
Bibliography 178
13 New Trends in Women’s Philanthropy 179
Impact Investing 179
Contents xix
Women Impact Investors 181

Gender Lens Investing 183
Non-traditional Models of Philanthropy: Emerson Collective 185
Maverick Collective 187
Blue Meridian 188
The Audacious Project 188
Bibliography 189
14 Diversity and Philanthropy—Engaging Women of Color
and the Next Generation of Donors 193
Identify Specific Affinity Groups 194
Donors of Color—Black Women 195
Hispanics in Philanthropy (HIP) 199
Asian American and Pacific Islander Women 201
Hong Hoang 204
The New Generation of Women Donors 205
Generation X 206
The Millennials 207
Philanthropy Women 208
A Time for Art 209
Generation Z 209
Suggestions for Fundraisers Working with the New
Generations of Women Donors 210
Co-create the Future 211
Bibliography 211
15 A Call to Action 215
What Can Fundraisers Do? 215
What Can Organizations Do? 216
What Can the Philanthropic Community Do? 217
What Can Women Donors Do? 217
Create Your Own Story 218
Correction to: Generosity and Gender C1
Index 219
About the Author
Lois A. Buntz is a Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE) and fund devel-
opment consultant. As the former CEO of United Way of East Central Iowa
Buntz raised more than $125 million dollars throughout her career. She has
held faculty positions at the University of Iowa Graduate School of Social
Work and Clarke College. She consults on the topics of strategic planning,
fund development and women’s philanthropy.
xxi
Abbreviations
4W Women, Well-Being in Wisconsin and the World

AAPI Asian American Pacific Islander
AFP Association of Fundraising Professionals
AHA American Heart Association
AKA Alpha Kappa Alpha
ARC American Red Cross
ASU Arizona State University
AWGC Asian Women’s Giving Circle
CAMH Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
CAPS Centre for Asian Philosophy and Society
CASE Council for the Advancement and Support of Education
CFW Chicago Foundation for Women
CTI Center of Talent Innovations
ERA Equal Rights Amendment
GC Giving Circles
GIIN Global Impact Investing Network
GLI Gender Lens Investing
HIP Hispanics in Philanthropy
HNW High Net Worth
IFC-We-Fi World Bank’s Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative
IWEC International Women’s Entrepreneurial Challenge
IWF Iowa Women’s Foundation
LAI Linkage, Ability and Interest Inventory
LCF Latino Community Foundation
LLC Limited Liability Company
xxiii
xxiv Abbreviations
Millennials Generation Y
NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
NOW National Organization for Women
NYWF New York Women’s Foundation
ROE Return on Equity
ROI Return on Investment
STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math
UI University of Iowa
UWGLA United Way of Greater Los Angeles
UWW United Way Worldwide
WELRP White Earth Land Recovery Project
WFCO Women’s Foundation of Colorado
WFM Women’s Foundation of Minnesota
WFN Women’s Funding Network
WMM Women Moving Millions
WPI Women’s Philanthropy Institute
List of Figures
Fig. 3.1 The continuum of awareness 26

Fig. 6.1 The organizational assessment 77
Fig. 7.1 Transactional to transformational gifts 93
Fig. 8.1 The cycle of organizational development 104
xxv
1
Introduction
This is not intended to be a “how to” instruction manual for fundraisers, but
a guide to help professionals think and learn about women’s philanthropy.
Every fund development professional has acquired knowledge, theories, and
methods that are the foundation of their unique style. Think of this text as
another set of tools. These are not just new approaches, but new insights
and ways of visualizing your women donors and prospects. The lists, sugges-
tions, and questions contained in these chapters are intended to encourage a
dialogue among organizational leaders, staff, fund development professionals,
colleagues, and donors. While acknowledging that every organization and
fundraiser is different, I know that there is one important message within
women’s philanthropy: gender matters.
The book is built around a six-step model that I have used in my fund
development work. The steps: Awareness, Assessment, Alignment, Action,
Acknowledgment, Achievement are familiar components of fundraising in
philanthropy circles. What is unique, is how these traditional methods impact
the broad range of women donors and how they can be adapted to address
the differences among genders.
Fundraising is challenging in the best of times. The past two years have
presented a new set of circumstances that required everyone in the philan-
thropic sector to be flexible and learn new ways to connect with donors.
I have incorporated a few examples of how COVID impacted fundraising,
organizations, and women.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

L. A. Buntz, Generosity and Gender,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_1
2 L. A. Buntz
As a former CEO I have biases for stable and effective organizations, struc-
tured programs, strategy, and a Systems Approach as important elements that
support good fund development work. Women give to organizations that
are well-managed and to people they trust. Integrating a women’s philan-
thropy initiative into an organization will create change. The chapters about
organizations are intended to be a guide to assess interest, readiness, and
capacity.
Finally, for women donors, my intention is not to tell you what to give
to or how to give. The stories and examples are here to help you understand
your strengths, skills, capacity, and motivations so you can effectively and
strategically make informed philanthropic decisions.
Definitions: Generosity and Philanthropy

I specifically selected generosity as part of the title of this book to empha-
size the expansiveness and variety of giving. Herzog (2020, p. 22) describes
generosity as “a broad term that encompasses orientations and actions that
are intended to benefit the well-being of others beyond the self.” Most
often we think of generosity as giving time, money, sharing talents, or
helping formally or informally. It’s a relational act, an interchange that
occurs between individuals or groups, within or outside of organizations.
One of the most important distinctions is that generosity is about others—
it is directed outward, although the giver may certainly benefit from the
experience. Generosity occurs through everyday encounters, random acts of
kindness, or ways that people enact their beliefs and values in social inter-
actions (Herzog, 2020, p. 24). Anyone can be generous, it does not require
wealth or status. Generosity is related to philanthropy, but it is also different.
Philanthropy is a defined and purposeful activity. Definitions of philan-
thropy abound, but one of the simplest is “private giving for public purposes”
(Barnum, 2017, p. 222). Most often it is the practice of giving money and
time to help make life better for other people (Merriam-Webster 2021).
It usually takes place within the context of what is frequently called the
third sector. The third sector can be referred to as nonprofits, the inde-
pendent sector, social sector, voluntary sector, or nongovernmental sector
(LeRoux & Feeney, 2014). Philanthropy has an end goal—to help a needy
person, support an organization, influence system change, build facilities,
fund research, or to volunteer. It has structure. Women’s philanthropy can be
thought of as purposeful generosity within the context of formal and informal
networks.
1 Introduction 3
Gender
I selected gender as the other key word in the title to remind fundraisers to
broaden their conversations and practice inclusion, diversity, and equity in all
their work. Gender refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, and expres-
sions that exist within a cultural context. Usually there are social expectations
about how people behave and interact based on society’s definition of their
gender. Sex is a biological term referring to the chromosomes you have at
birth, either male or female.
All the references to women within this book refer to both individuals who
identify their gender as female and are biologically female.
Women’s Philanthropy
Some scholars and fundraisers define women’s philanthropy as women donors
who invest in causes that impact women and girls. The history of women’s
philanthropy outlines clearly that many of the women’s foundations and
funds were developed for that primary purpose. But the world of women
donors is expansive and diverse and not all women donors want to invest
exclusively in women and girls’ projects. Women’s philanthropy in this text will
be defined as any and all women who give to any charitable cause.
Initiatives versus Programs

Throughout the book I refer to women’s philanthropy initiatives, not
programs. I specifically use this term to emphasize the wide range of work
within the women’s philanthropy field. Initiatives imply a strategy to improve
something, create, or innovate using a new approach. Some initiatives may be
short-term projects, informal networks, or experiential. Others may be well-
established programs within fund development departments, or completely
independent third sector organizations.
Chapter Summaries
Chapter 2: Awareness: The New Faces of Philanthropy. Fundraisers have
an image and belief about who is a philanthropist, but the picture is rapidly
changing. The face of a philanthropist is no longer only white, male and aged.
4 L. A. Buntz
Today, the faces are women, young and old, married, single, Caucasian, Black,
Latinx, Asian, and countless others from diverse communities with varying
capacities to give.
Chapter 3: Awareness Built Social Movements: The Three Waves of
Women’s Philanthropy. How did women’s philanthropy develop? Three
distinct historical waves or phases are outlined setting in motion the
continued evolution of women’s philanthropy, each building on the previous
era’s progress. Professionals and women philanthropists who played a role in
these phases share their insights through stories.
Chapter 4: Awareness: How Women Give. Previous research on how
women give has suggested that women have unique patterns of how they
practice philanthropy. This chapter builds on that concept exploring how
women connect to others and how fundraisers can connect with women
donors. Women learn about philanthropy and develop an awareness about
how it can be used through role models and mentors. Their yearning to tell
stories, clarify their values, create change, and influence the next generation
of donors are all characteristics of how women practice philanthropy. Several
donors share their stories about learning philanthropic practices. Awareness is
created in two dimensions: the fundraisers’ awareness of women’s patterns of
giving and how women donors begin to identify their interest and awareness
of philanthropy.
Chapter 5: Assessing Your Donors. Assessment is a two-lane road
that merges into one as fundraisers collect information through subjective,
personal encounters and an objective analysis of a donor’s wealth capacity.
How does the source of someone’s wealth impact a donor’s ideas about
philanthropy? This is an area of donor research that has not been explored
in much detail and a contributing factor to how women view their philan-
thropic choices. As women assess how they acquired their wealth it helps
them evaluate how they feel about it and what they want to accomplish with
it. Stories from women who have inherited, married, or earned their wealth
illustrate their perceptions about their giving. Single, married, and widowed
women are featured. This foundation of information helps fundraisers assess
which donors may be prospects for philanthropy and helps women donors
assess if and how they want to give.
Chapter 6: Assessment: Is Your Organization is Ready for a Women’s
Philanthropy Initiative? Capacity is a donor issue and an organizational
issue. This chapter is designed to help fund development professionals and
third sector leaders assess an organization’s capacity, readiness, and ability
to establish a women’s philanthropy initiative. Hidden biases, assumptions
about women’s wealth and financial knowledge, staff skills and traditions
1 Introduction 5
frequently hinder an organization’s ability to engage women. Key questions

and evaluation instruments are included to help the organization’s leadership
and fundraisers evaluate the potential to grow their connections with women
donors.
Chapter 7: Alignment: Helping Donors Find Their Passion. Research
has proven that giving is an experience that increases an individual’s life satis-
faction and well-being. Offering women an opportunity to experience this
sense of joy and have an impact on a cause they care about is magical. Two
factors of alignment are featured: values clarification and wealth capacity. As
women assess their values and match their interests with financial capacity,
they can determine the type and significance of a gift, including those that
are transactional, transitional, and transformational. A fundraiser’s task is to
help the donor discover her true passion. Donor stories illustrate the power
of this alignment.
Chapter 8: Action: Making It Happen. How does an organization
create and implement a women’s philanthropy initiative? After the structure
and developmental stages of an organization are reviewed, three examples
of women’s philanthropy initiatives at different stages of development are
featured. Suggestions for the development of an initiative are included.
Chapter 9: Action: Making the ASK. If organizations are ready, donors
have been engaged and assessed, interests and wealth aligned, the next step
is to forge forward with an ask. Creating memorable experiences for women
donors and executing successful asks is an art and a skill. Steps to prepare and
implement an ask are outlined.
Chapter 10: Acknowledgment: Myths, Mystery and Magic. Thanking
donors is one of the most important aspects of women’s philanthropy and
probably the area that gets the least amount of attention. How do we thank
women donors for their belief in our work, our cause, and our organizations?
Do they like a different type of acknowledgment than men? The bond of
trust is sacred and essential in our work as fundraisers. Making thanks more
than a perfunctory task, takes time, planning, and skill.
Chapter 11: Achievements: Healthcare, Higher Education, Environ-
ment. Three sectors that have had success developing women’s philanthropy
initiatives are healthcare, education, and environment. Higher education and
healthcare have long histories of working with women donors and the envi-
ronmental sector is rapidly acquiring new philanthropists, especially with
younger donors. What has worked and why? Examples of programs that have
been successful and lessons learned help guide fundraisers who work in these
sectors.
6 L. A. Buntz
Chapter 12: Achievements: Women Investing in Business and Lead-

ership. Women’s philanthropy can take many forms. Women donors help
other women by investing in women-owned businesses and mentoring
entrepreneurs, helping women get a seat on corporate boards, and offering
training and development for career advancement. Donor stories and estab-
lished programs highlight the success and achievement of women’s philan-
thropy in the business and economic sector.
Chapter 13: New Trends in Women’s Philanthropy. Impact and Gender
Lens investing are two areas of women’s philanthropy that are gaining
momentum and spurring interests from women donors. These investment
options are being integrated into women’s foundations, global programs, and
considered by a wide range of endowment managers. Other nontraditional
philanthropy models led by women are described, including the Maverick
and Emerson Collective, Blue Meridian, and the Audacious Project.
Chapter 14: Diversity and Philanthropy: Engaging Women of Color
and the Next Generation of Donors. Women leaders from key organiza-
tions share their experiences and thoughts about how to engage and work
with women of color. As fundraisers become more aware of how intersection-
ality is a constant and ever-changing dynamic in working with women donors
it is essential that our learning continues. Melanie Brown, Gates Founda-
tion; Yolanda F. Johnson, Founder of Women of Color in Fundraising and
Philanthropy; Amalia Delgado, Associate VP Strategy, Hispanics in Philan-
thropy; and Hong Hoang, founder of the Vietnamese nonprofit CHANGE
are featured.
The next generation of women donors are the future of women’s philan-
thropy. Giving patterns of Generations, X, Y, and Z are explored and
compared with the patterns of the Baby Boomers. Kiersten Marek, founder of
Philanthropy Women, an online communication portal focused on feminist
causes and donors discusses how the new generation of donors think about
philanthropy.
Chapter 15: A Call to Action. As women’s philanthropy continues to grow,
now is the time to shine a light on the vast array of opportunities that await
women who want to give and fundraisers who want to make it happen.
Bibliography
Barnum, E. (2017). The social biases of philanthropy. Annual Review of Sociology,
43(1), 222.
Herzog, P. S. (2020). The science of generosity. Palgrave Macmillan, Springer Nature.
1 Introduction 7
LaRoux, K., & Feeney, M. K. (2014). Nonprofit organizations and the civil society in
the United States. Routledge.
Merriam-Webster. (2021). Retrieved December 27, 2021, from https://www.mer
riam-webster.com/dictionary/philanthropy
2
Awareness: The New Faces of Philanthropy
Philanthropy is a big word, an old word that usually brings to mind images
of an older white male, a family inheritance, or a young tech millionaire in
jeans and a hoodie. Does your vision ever include a woman? Melinda Gates,
Oprah Winfrey, MacKenize Scott, and Abigail Disney are all women acting
philanthropically whom many of us know. Other examples include:
Laurene Powell Jobs, widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, who in 2015
gave $50 million through her organization XQ: The Super School Project
(Di Mento, 2016). Diane Hendricks, owner and chairperson of ABC Supply,
one of the richest women in the U.S. Forbes magazine listed her as the #1
most successful woman entrepreneur at a net worth of $4.9 billion. She
has invested millions in economic development in Beloit, Wisconsin over
the past 25 years (Stevenson, 2017). Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating
Officer of Facebook, #19 among the 50 top donors in 2018 contributed
$100.7 million to LeanIn.org, a group promoting female leadership, and Opt
ionB.org, an online website for grief support (Di Mento & Gose, 2019).
And Mellody Hobson, co-CEO of Ariel Investments, who with her husband
George Lucas recently received the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy for their
contributions to education and after-school programs for inner-city teens in
Chicago. Mellody authors a column for the Black Enterprise magazine and is
the first African-American woman to chair the Economic Club of Chicago
(Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy, 2019). These are just a few of the new
faces of philanthropy, women who have earned their wealth, married wealth,
or inherited wealth. The current and future wealth capacity of women is a

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_2
10 L. A. Buntz
major factor that will enable more women to give. It’s a phenomenon that
many philanthropic professionals should be watching closely.
In 2014, Women Moving Millions (WMM) a philanthropic group
comprised of more than 300 women, each of whom gives at least one million
dollars to charitable causes in their lifetime, commissioned a study, All in for
Her: A Call to Action. Their findings estimated that U.S. women have the
capacity to give $230 billion annually (Nelson, 2014). By 2023, women are
expected to control between $81 and $93 trillion, 32% of all global wealth
(Zakrzewski et al., 2020). The Rockefeller Foundation predicts that many
women will experience a dual wealth inheritance in their lifetime: once from
their parents and secondly from a spouse (Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors).
These predictions set the stage for more women of wealth to become philan-
thropists. But women who are philanthropists come with varying capacities
and not all of them are high net worth (HNW) individuals.
People’s perceptions about who can be philanthropic are as important
as the reality. Billie Jean King, the American professional tennis player and
founder of the Women’s Tennis Association, shared this comment with Lee
Roper-Batker, the former CEO of the Women’s Foundation of Minnesota
(WFM), “I believe that anyone who moves is an athlete.” Roper-Batker
adopted that philosophy as she grew the foundation believing that anyone
who gives is a philanthropist. “I think people have a hard time with the
term, so it’s important for women to take up some of the space and see their
power as philanthropists,” Roper-Batker commented. Fortunately, WFM had
a woman philanthropist Mary Lee Dayton who gave the first $1 million
gift to launch the foundation in the early 1980s. Dayton defied the myth
that women had minimal resources or were unwilling to make significant
contributions. Another philanthropist Roper-Batker mentioned was a woman
named Audrey who lived on social security and every month would send the
WFM between $1.00 and $4.00 in cash. When Roper-Batker called to thank
her and asked why she sent the donation, Audrey said she lived in subsidized
housing and after she paid her bills and bought food, she gave money to four
to five charitable organizations so that women could have more opportunities
than she did (Roper-Batker, personal communication, May 12, 2021).
Asking women philanthropists to define the word philan-
thropy yielded some interesting responses. Ana Oliveira, CEO of the
New York Women’s Foundation said, “It’s the love of humanity, an act
of creating a world that is bigger than yourself, an expansion of yourself ”
(Oliveira, personal communication, November 22, 2017). Many other
women mention volunteering, giving time, sharing skills, and money. None
2 Awareness: The New Faces of Philanthropy 11
of the women I interviewed responded with any version of “it’s only a finan-
cial transaction.” They all talked about philanthropy as something broader:
time, talent, treasure, testimony (telling their story), and ties (connections).
Some women interviewed disliked the word, proclaiming it outdated.
Others proposed the creation of a new word for the new world of
philanthropy, especially women’s philanthropy. Approximately ten years ago,
Katherine Swank, a fundraising consultant for Target Analytics, coined the
term femo-anthropy in an article she wrote about women’s philanthropic
giving (Swank, 2010). The term never caught on as an alternative to philan-
thropy and no one since then has proposed any other option. K. Sujata, the
former Executive Director of the Chicago Foundation for Women says, “It’s
a hefty word; use it, be proud of it, don’t shy away from its power.” A big
word, for big ideas and big needs (K. Sujata, personal communication, April
18, 2019).
Has the image of a philanthropist changed? Will it continue to change? As
women’s philanthropy grows in scale and scope, women will be part of the
picture and perhaps they can coin a new word to describe “women who give
and practice generosity.”
Bibliography
Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy. (2019, April 10). Retrieved June 10, 2020, from
https://www.medalofphilanthropy.org/mellody-hobson-and-george-lucas
Di Mento, M. (2016, June). Women to watch. Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Di Mento, M., & Gose, B. (2019, February). Betting on tomorrow. Chronicle of
Philanthropy.
Nelson, G. (2014, October 17). The powerful philanthropic intention
behind women moving millions. Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved March 25,
2019, from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/the-powerful-philanthropic-intention-
behind-women-moving-millions
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. Women and giving (pamphlet, n.d.).
Swank, K. (2010, March/April). Femo-anthropy: Women’s philanthropic giving
patterns and objectives. Advancing Philanthropy.
Stevenson, A. (2017, August 5). A billionaire-fueled revival. New York Times.
Retrieved April 11, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/business/
dealbook/beloit-wisconsin-revival-diane-hendricks.html
Zakrzewski, A., Reeves, N. A., Kahlich, M., Klein, M., Mattar, R. A., & Knobel, S.
(2020). Managing the next decade of women’s wealth. Boston Consulting Group.
Retrieved February 14, 2021, from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/man
aging-next-decade-women-wealth
3
Awareness Built Social Movements: The
Three Waves of Women’s Philanthropy
The First Wave

It is easy to forget that there was a time in America when women were not
allowed to speak in public, to attend school, or to control their own money.
For more than 100 years after the Revolutionary War, women had limited
access to financial resources. If their fathers established accounts for their
inheritance, and they married, their husbands became owners of all of their
property. One of the reasons some daughters of wealthy men never married
was so they could control their own fortunes. And yet, even in these restric-
tive and oppressive conditions women became donors to important social
changes.
The history of American women’s role in philanthropy has been docu-
mented by numerous historians. Kathryn McCarthy, a professor of history
and director of the Center for the Study of Philanthropy at the City Univer-
sity of New York edited a series of essays more than thirty years ago tracing
the early years of philanthropic development and citing the caricature of Lady
Bountiful as a popular reference to women donors (McCarthy, 1990).
The first recorded gift of women’s philanthropy came from the English-
woman Ann Radcliffe Moulson in 1643 when she endowed the first schol-
arship fund at Harvard—which then didn’t admit women, though nearly
two hundred years later when the women’s annex to the university became
a college it was given her maiden name, Radcliffe.
In 1806, Mrs. Isabelle Graham and Eliza Hamilton (wife of Alexander
Hamilton) founded the first American orphanage, which is still in existence

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_3
14 L. A. Buntz
under the name Graham Windham (Graham, 2021). In the early half of the
1800s women like the Grimke sisters risked their reputations by giving their
time and voices to the movement to abolish slavery. And, by 1848 women
were funding the first women’s rights conference in the world, held in Seneca
Falls, New York.
Mary Garrett, who inherited $6 million (equivalent to almost $154
million in 2019) from her father, John W. Garrett, President of the B & O
Railroad and her friend, M. Cary Thomas, whose family would not permit
her to get a college education or to enter the family business, established
Bryn Mawr School, a girls’ preparatory school in Baltimore in 1894. Garrett’s
influence extended even further. She forced Johns Hopkins Medical School
to admit women by tying a large donation to the requirement that it admit
women. When asked by Susan B. Anthony to join the suffrage movement,
Garrett and Thomas agreed to help raise $60,000. By hosting suffragists at
her home in Baltimore, Garret legitimized the movement in the eyes of her
peers (Johnson, 2017).
Mrs. Frank Leslie, a very successful businesswoman who had assumed her
husband’s first name in order to position herself in a male-dominated world
and to prevent her husband’s sons from taking over the business, left her
entire estate, estimated at $1 million, (equivalent to $25.6 million in 2019) to
Carrie Chapman Catt, president of the National American Woman Suffrage
Association and founder of the League of Women Voters and the Interna-
tional Alliance of Women (Johnson, 2017). These funds were dedicated to
the suffrage movement.
Other women philanthropists helped fund colleges, nonprofits, and social
service programs. By 1875, Sophia Smith had funded the opening of Smith
College and established a school for the deaf. Clara Barton established the
American Red Cross in 1882, and at the turn of the twentieth century, Eliz-
abeth Milbank Anderson helped finance school nutrition programs and the
Children Aid Society.
By the time American women won the right to vote in 1920, Jane Addams
and her work at Hull House in Chicago was transforming the lives of women
and immigrants. The success of Hull House was partly due to Addams’ own
philanthropy. Following her father’s death in 1881, she inherited between
$50,000 and $60,000 a substantial amount of money considering that at the
time skilled artisans’ yearly wages were only $1,000. Hull House survived for
decades because Addams funded programs and supported the maintenance
of multiple facilities by raising additional monies from Chicago’s social elite,
of which she was a member (Davis, 1973). Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in
3 Awareness Built Social Movements: The Three Waves … 15
1931, her investment in social change was a personal commitment as well as

a professional aspiration.
Early philanthropy by and for women marked a significant shift in society,
a tide that had been building for hundreds of years and finally yielded many
political and social changes, as money and activism were paired successfully in
creating a new social order for women. Yet, while the suffrage movement was
a great success, it was incomplete. The right to vote benefited predominantly
white women. Women of color like Ida B. Wells, a journalist and civil rights
activist, and Mary Church Terrell, one of the first African-American women
to earn a college degree, are frequently missing from the recorded histories.
Even after the passage of the 19th amendment, women of color in many
southern states still could not vote.
The Second Wave

The 1963 publication of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique was the
beginning of an awakening, a match that lit the fire of a new women’s move-
ment. That same year, John F. Kennedy’s Presidential Commission on the
Status of Women criticized the inequalities facing American women. The
report avoided the subject of a possible new Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
specifically for women, but Betty Freidan, Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug
formed a network to fight for its passage. While passing the ERA was the
ultimate goal, secondary benefits of their struggle were consciousness raising,
public attention, activism, and heightened awareness of women’s social status.
As women came together to discuss, protest, and explore social conditions,
they were acutely aware that action on a political or social level would require
money—and lots of it.
Stephanie Clohesy has worked with some of the most influential
women philanthropists, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Ford Foundation
and numerous women’s foundations all over the world, including Helen
LaKelly Hunt’s foundation, The Sister’s Fund. Her work has helped women’s
organizations with strategic visioning, knowledge acquisition, leadership
development, research, and analysis.
After college graduation in the 1970s, Clohesy moved to New York and
began working as an administrative director in a social policy research center
and volunteering at a women’s newspaper. “Moving to New York was an
intentional decision for my husband and me,” Clohesy said. “We wanted to
be in the mix of all the social action, arts, and culture. We really had no idea
what we would do. He was enrolled to begin his Ph.D. studies and I knew
16 L. A. Buntz
I wanted to change the world” (Clohesy, personal communication, June 22,

2018).
Clohesy’s young ambition and skill placed her at the heart of the action, a
witness to the genesis of the second women’s movement, including a ratifica-
tion effort for the ERA and its connection to women’s philanthropy. As they
say, timing is everything. Within six years she had evolved from “no idea” to
the Executive Director of the National Organization for Women’s (NOW)
Legal Defense and Education Fund. “There were two women’s foundations
developing during this time,” Clohesy recalls, “The Ms. Foundation and the
New York Women’s Foundation. The NOW Legal Defense and Education
Fund was an operating fund, not a grant making organization, while the Ms.
Foundation made grants to women’s and girls’ programs. We were all part of
an activist network” (Clohesy, personal communication, June 22, 2018).
She remembers one intense meeting with Betty Freidan and various attor-
neys trying to determine what legal options were available to address a
legislative change that would extend the ratification process for the ERA to
the Constitution. Attorneys are well-known for their conservative approach
to change, and as Clohesy recalled, those present were coming up with all
the reasons the proposed suggestions could not work. Finally, after a lengthy
discussion, Friedan made a comment about getting the attorneys out of the
room, and mixed with a little colorful language demanded—find some people
who can tell me what I can do, not what I can’t. She was articulating what all
change agents know: focus on opportunities, not on barriers.
In October 1971, the Equal Rights Amendment won the requisite two-
thirds vote in the U.S. House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate.
In March 1972, the Senate overwhelmingly approved its passage and set a
seven-year deadline for three-quarters of the states (38) to ratify it. That qual-
ification proved to be an obstacle that has plagued the amendment for more
than forty-eight years (National Organization for Women, 2021).
Yet, the women’s movement continued to grow and expand, with Betty
Friedan and Gloria Steinem as its recognized leaders. Friedan focused on
the legislative aspects and publicity, while Steinem founded Ms. Magazine
as a platform to spread the messages of women’s empowerment. Originally
funds raised through the magazine were directed to the national women’s
movement. But eventually the Ms. Foundation, an entity separate from the
magazine, was founded by four visionary women; Gloria Steinem, Patricia
Carbine, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, and Marlo Thomas, with a mission to deliver
funding and other strategic resources to organizations elevating women’s and
girls’ voices. (Recently, three more states, Nevada, Illinois and Virginia have
ratified the ERA, but it remains in a state of limbo.)
Awareness Built Networks

While significant activism and community organizing focused on engaging
women in funding political issues during the 1960s and 1970s, fundraisers
recognized that nationally and regionally most private foundations were only
minimally funding programs for women and girls. Two issues arose—how to
increase the awareness of women donors of the need for their philanthropic
engagement, and how to provide more funding for programs that impact
women and girls.
The Council of Foundations (originally named the National Committee
of Foundations and Trusts for Community Welfare) had been established
in 1949 by Edward L. Ryerson, a steel executive in Chicago (Council on
Foundations, 2020). A membership organization of community, family and
corporate foundations, its representatives in the mid-1970s were predomi-
nantly white men from elite Eastern schools who were executives of those
foundations. At the annual Council of Foundations Conference in 1975
Eleanor Peterson, Executive Director of the Chicago Women’s Foundation,
convened a Women Only meeting by posting a handwritten sign on a door
at the hotel where the foundation’s executives were meeting (Mollner &
Wilson, 2005). Chaired by Congresswoman Martha Griffiths, who detailed
how women and girls were being ignored and shortchanged in public and
private funding, it resulted in a committee to develop the objectives and
structure for Women and Foundations, Corporate Philanthropy, an affiliate
of the Council of Foundations. Later renamed Women and Philanthropy,
it became the first organization to begin to focus exclusively on this topic.
The organization had two primary objectives: increase the level of philan-
thropic funding for women and girls, and enhance the status of women as
decision-makers within private philanthropy (Lyman, 2005).
By the early 1970s, a small group of foundation program officers
conducted a survey to determine the level of foundation giving for women
and girls. The results documented that only 0.6% of foundation giving
went to women (Mollner & Wilson, 2005, p. 17), even though there was a
majority of female staff at the foundations. Shocked and amazed, the philan-
thropy sector suddenly realized that while the social and political arenas were
bursting with messages about equality and opportunity, it too was plagued
with sexist and discriminatory practices. The concept of a gender lens did
not exist: donors, foundations, and funders didn’t think about how their
philanthropic investments impacted women.
18 L. A. Buntz
Within two years a dozen women’s funds had been formed including:
Astraea, a National Lesbian Action Foundation, The Women’s Sports Foun-
dation (launched by Billie Jean King), and The San Francisco Women’s Foun-
dation. The three oldest women’s foundations—The American Association
of University Women Educational Foundation (1888); Zonta International
Foundation (1919); and the Business and Professional Women’s Foundation
(1956) drew on their membership bases to raise money for scholarships,
research and grants for women and girls (Mollner & Wilson, 2005).
By 1985, approximately thirty-five women’s funds were in some stage of
development. Tracy Gary, an activist and philanthropist, worked with other
women philanthropists to help establish the National Network of Women’s
Funds, an organization representing women funds and foundations. As this
network grew larger it became evident that it was time to bring the multiple
women’s foundations and organizations together to determine how to become
more structured and effective. That year more than seventy women from
twenty established funds, including representatives from the Netherlands
and France, met outside of Washington, DC to discuss values, goals, and
concerns regarding the establishment of a new organization. As a result of
the meeting The National Network of Women’s Funds became the Women’s
Funding Network (WFN), a membership-based organization that could act
as a network for the women’s foundations and women’s funds. The keynote
address by Dana Alston, the first woman president of the Black United Fund,
declared it “a truly historic event” (Mollner & Wilson, 2005).
Following this meeting, women’s funds began to develop at an accelerated
rate. By the second half of the 1980s, twenty-five more funds had developed.
Women’s foundations and funds within community foundations grew and
four women from California who believed that women’s rights were essential
to social, economic, and political change around the world created the Global
Fund for Women.
In 1995, the Fourth United Nations Women’s Conference was held in
Beijing and concurrently, the International Nongovernmental Forum on
Women helped develop a platform for action, linking women on a world-
wide basis. Public dollars increased, and foundation funding and new models
of philanthropy were explored. Women were funding women and a democ-
ratization of philanthropy was birthed (Grumm et al., 2005).
The WFN supported the concepts of empowerment and inclusiveness,
leadership by diverse women, connections and collaborations, and a vision for
justice and social change. However, by 2000, the WFN needed a new direc-
tion and more structure. Like any new organization, it needed vision—but
also a clear path to success.
Christine Grumm had served as the president of Chicago Foundation for

Women and deputy general secretary of the Lutheran World Federation in
Geneva, Switzerland. Present at the 1985 meeting and an ardent supporter
of women’s philanthropy, Grumm was an ideal candidate to lead WFN into
a new era. Under her leadership, the organization grew from a network of
75 funds and organizations to more than 160 with assets of more than $535
million. Collective grant making grew to more than $70 million.
Grumm, said of those days, women had to be challenged to “give more
and give bigger.” “WFN had to expand its reach and encourage all kinds of
gifts and really examine what social change versus systemic change meant.”
The success of the Women’s Funding Network established it as a model for
women’s philanthropy. By combining some of the goals of the women’s move-
ment with women philanthropists, the possibilities were endless (Grumm,
personal communication March 21, 2018).
Articulating a vision and engaging donors in the cause required definition.
Members of the women’s funding movement were guided by four primary
principles:
• Democratize: Share problems and solutions, with everyone finding a seat

at the table.
• Decentralize: Distribute decision-making to multiple locations at the most
impacted local level.
• Diversify: Listen to critical and too often silenced voices in every discus-
sion.
• Demystify: Make fundraising and grant making open and transparent
(Grumm et al., 2005).
The Third Wave

As the women’s funds and foundations grew, focusing their efforts on funding
programs for women and girls, another wave of women’s philanthropy devel-
oped at institutions of higher education. In the late 1980s, Martha Taylor,
Vice President at the University of Wisconsin Foundation and Sondra Shaw
Hardy, an attorney and lead development officer at the Wisconsin State
Historical Society, had been exploring women’s giving patterns. Taylor knew
that women donors were not being asked to give or being credited for the
gifts they gave with their husbands. Nor were they involved in campaigns
or volunteer leadership roles on boards. With the support of six women
philanthropists from the university, Taylor and her group began to discuss
20 L. A. Buntz
how to encourage more philanthropic giving from women, especially major

gifts during their lifetimes. In the next several months the group organized
and became the Council on Women’s Giving, later renamed the Women’s
Philanthropy Council, founded as part of the School of Human Ecology.
Encouraged by the Council to explore women’s giving patterns, Taylor and
Shaw Hardy began collecting data and stories, Andrea Kaminski became the
first director, and the Council’s work grew. Taylor was asked to join The
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) and to
provide a program on women and philanthropy, one of the first presentations
on this topic at a national conference.
By 1988, the Council on Women’s Giving was fully established at the
University of Wisconsin and education for women donors and fundraising
staff began to develop and grow. In 1991, Taylor and Shaw Hardy were asked
to author an article about career women and giving for the National Society
of Fundraising Executives Journal. The interest in women’s philanthropy as
a model within higher education had piqued the curiosity of professional
fundraisers, although many were still skeptical.
Taylor and Shaw Hardy began holding focus groups to gain more insights.
The themes of these discussions lead them to identify the six C’s of women’s
giving: create, change, connect, commit, collaborate and celebrate (Shaw
Hardy & Taylor, 2010). These characteristics have been substantiated in addi-
tional research, including my own. Taylor and Shaw Hardy defined these and
added three additional C’s: control, confidence and courage.
Another characteristic that has evolved as women’s philanthropy has grown
is counsel. Women donors interviewed for this book shared the experience
of having a mentor—a counselor who influenced her philanthropic giving
through volunteering and/or financial contributions. These counselors were
family, friends, and colleagues. When women become donors, they also want
to offer counsel and carry on this tradition of mentoring others. Counsel
could be the tenth “C” that characterizes women’s philanthropy.
Fortunately, as Taylor and Shaw Hardy forged ahead, several women advo-
cated for this small band of women philanthropy leaders: including Kathleen
McCarthy; Joan Fisher, Director of the Women’s Fund in Washington D.C.;
and Gerda Lerner, a University of Wisconsin (at Madison) historian, who
offered encouragement and inspiration. In 1991, Anne Mathews, a University
of Wisconsin graduate and writer published the article “Alma Maters Court
Their Daughters” in the New York Times magazine after interviewing Taylor
and Shaw Hardy. This article prompted national attention spreading the
word about the unique qualities of women’s philanthropy (Taylor, personal
communication, April 3, 2018).
Overwhelmed with the subsequent number of calls and inquiries they

started to receive, Taylor and Shaw Hardy developed a newsletter about
women’s philanthropy, distributing it to an initial mailing list of 300 and
went on the road offering seminars and presentations. The newsletter helped
establish a new organization, the National Network on Women Philan-
thropists. Recognizing that the WFN and women’s foundations were focusing
their efforts on recruiting donors to fund programs and services for women
and girls, the National Network on Women Philanthropists (eventually
renamed as the National Network of Women as Philanthropists) focused
on “the empowerment of women as philanthropists, including educating
volunteers and professionals about how to work with women donors and
developing program models that involve women and donors at universities,
women’s groups and other organizations” (Shaw Hardy, 1997). This broader
approach to women’s philanthropy would engage donors who had interests in
many different areas: cultural, arts, education, healthcare, and environment
to name a few.
As interest grew at other colleges and universities, Taylor and Shaw Hardy
struggled with managing their new endeavor and working their regular
jobs. The need for funds to hire support staff became apparent and they
approached Maddie Levitt, a fundraiser at Drake University in Des Moines,
Iowa, hoping to engage her support and a financial investment. Levitt knew
the importance of women’s philanthropy and was inspired by Taylor and
Shaw Hardy’s vision. After a weekend of discussion and exploration, Levitt
contributed $100,000 to hire staff and help spread the word.
By 1992, the audience for women’s philanthropy had grown significantly
and the need for a conference specifically dedicated to this topic seemed both
essential and timely. The Johnson Foundation’s Wingspread Conference was
held in Racine Wisconsin and included nationally known speakers, women
philanthropists, advocates, and professional fundraisers. It fueled the interest
and passions of women and men who knew that women could give more.
Heeding the advice of her mother, who encouraged Taylor to write all
of this down, she and Shaw Hardy began writing a book in 1993 and
Reinventing Fundraising—Realizing the Potential of Women’s Philanthropy was
published in 1995. In 1997, the National Network of Women as Philan-
thropists was renamed The Women’s Philanthropy Institute (WPI), National
conferences, workshops, and articles in philanthropy journals began to
emerge on a regular basis. But like many nonprofits, the funding necessary
to sustain the work became a struggle. Another pressing issue was a need
to verify the qualitative findings of Taylor and Shaw Hardy. WPI needed
a strong partner and an academic connection would be ideal; having a
22 L. A. Buntz
stable, well-established administrative home was the goal. In 2003, Cheryle

Altinkemer from Purdue University was President of WPI’s Board of Direc-
tors and Eugene Temple was Director of the Center of Philanthropy at
Indiana University. They began to talk about a home for WPI and forged
a connection that resulted in Indiana’s Center of Philanthropy becoming a
permanent base for WPI. In 2008, Dr. Debra Mesch became the Director of
WPI and in the past twelve years, the Center has produced more than twenty
reports about research studies, received $5 million from the Gates Founda-
tion, and held six national symposia. In 2013, the Center was renamed the
Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. In 2019, Jeannie Infante Sager was hired
as the new Director of WPI.
Helen LaKelly Hunt

Helen Hunt’s story of discovering her wealth and developing her philan-
thropic interests is chronicled with humor, candor, and historical research in
her book, And The Spirit Moved Them: The Lost Radical History of America’s
First Feminists. She writes that while discovering the sisterhood that was a
part of the abolitionist movement, “I was struck how these women spoke
to my journey—how I learned as they had, that power was not given, but
stepped into and that its full expression occurred in the arenas of voice,
money, empowerment, solidarity and faith” (Hunt, 2017, p. 8).
Hunt had grown up in a 1950s traditional, patriarchal chauvinistic home,
where money was never discussed with the women in the household.
Assuming typical gender roles, her brothers became involved in the family
business, while she and her sisters followed their mother’s lead and learned to
be good southern belles, even learning how to curtsy.
An early epiphany occurred one summer when she chose to work as a
church camp counselor and was surprised to find the camp filled with a wide
diversity of people. Her own Baptist church had emphasized concern for the
poor, but also had segregated services—one for whites and one for people of
color. At camp she met people who were not rich and not white. They came
from varied backgrounds, yet shared Hunt’s faith and compassion for others.
The experience opened her eyes to the harmony and joy that could come from
sharing her personal gifts, not her possessions or wealth. The experience also
sparked her smoldering feelings of rebellion.
Hunt had struggled with her family’s defined parameters for women and
always felt strangely uncomfortable and frustrated, especially when she was
relegated to the parlor while her father and husband discussed business in her
father’s office. She felt there was something inherently wrong about not being
included in the family business discussions, but had no avenues of entry into
the world of money.
Hunt pursued a teaching degree and eventually landed a job in an inner-
city high school in Dallas, much to her husband’s dismay. There she saw
first-hand the inequities that existed outside of her comfortable home and
neighborhood. How could she have so many resources and others have so
little? Her concern for the people in those neighborhoods did not resonate
with her husband. His purpose and goal in life seemed to center around
acquiring wealth—the more, the better. Finally, Hunt and her husband
agreed to divorce and in 1979 she moved to New York with her two small
children and began to craft a new life.
Yet, her real awakening came one day when her sister Swanee called and
asked if she had a current copy of Forbes handy. There in black and white was
their financial worth, listing them as some of the wealthiest individuals in the
world. Stunned and surprised, the sisters also felt a bit foolish. After exploring
the structure of her family trust and assessing the monthly allowance given to
her, Helen decided to “exit the parlor and enter the counting house” (Hunt,
2017, p. 8).
With newfound access to money, Hunt increased her attendance at philan-
thropy forums and began to learn about the needs of women and girls. Why
were so few funds being directed to programs for them? Why didn’t more
women philanthropists support this? With her network of relationships in
Dallas, she began to explore the possibility of building a Dallas Women’s
Foundation, calling on her friend and colleague Tracy Gary to share the
model used by the San Francisco Women’s Foundation.
Hunt recalls those early 1980s conversations with possible supporters.
Many wealthy women with whom she interacted did not support women and
girls’ causes or write big checks. She was discouraged by the scores of people
who told her, “You need to know—in Texas, we don’t use the words women
and money in the same sentence. And you definitely, definitely, definitely
don’t use the words, women, money, and power. No one’s going to fund you.
The women will not fund you. Men will hate you” (Hunt, personal commu-
nication, December 21, 2017). Despite that rhetoric, the Dallas Women’s
Foundation became the fourteenth women’s foundation to be established in
the U.S.
Helen Hunt continued her pursuit of helping to establish women’s founda-
tions and with the consultation of Tracy Gary, helped cofound the New York
Women’s Foundation and was on the first board of the WFN. She continued
24 L. A. Buntz
to increase her participation in global women’s philanthropy and grew more

determined each day to change the status of women’s philanthropy.
Women Moving Millions—Voice, Values, Vision

In 2005, Hunt had been documenting the history of visionary women donors
who had pledged a million dollars or more to women and girls, when she
was challenged by her sister Swanee to “raise the bar on women’s giving”
(Hunt, personal communication, December 21, 2017). Swanee had promised
to pledge a portion of her inheritance to Helen if she would help develop
a global collective of committed, purposeful women making unprecedented
gifts of $1 million or more for the advancement of women and girls. She
believed that her sister’s interest in the status and well-being of women
and gender-based philanthropy, as well as her capacity and drive for raising
substantial funds made her a perfect spokesperson and advocate (Women
Moving Millions, 2020).
Hunt and Stephanie Clohesy had been on the search committee that hired
Chris Grumm many years earlier when WFN was getting established. As
the CEO of the Women’s Funding Network, Grumm had a successful track
record as a fundraiser, executive, and manager. Recognizing that Grumm’s
organizational and fundraising skills would be a tremendous asset in the
development of this new initiative, Hunt asked Grumm to co-chair the effort.
The community of women donors who had given million-dollar gifts part-
nered with the Hunt sisters and Grumm to establish a giving campaign that
would raise $150 million in two years and establish a giving campaign that
would unleash the women’s “voice, values and vision” into the world.
Hunt called her friend Kathryn McCarthy at the Center for the Study of
Philanthropy at the City University of New York and asked if something like
this had ever been done. McCarthy’s research indicated that it had not, at
least not at this level. Although women had donated million dollar gifts in
the past and previous waves of women’s philanthropy demonstrated that they
could create change through advocacy and money, there had never been a
campaign quite this large. The marketing brochure designed for the campaign
proudly asked women to step up, with the tagline, “Welcome to your place in
history. We’re glad you’re here” (Hunt, personal communication, December
21, 2017). Hunt remembers fondly how flattered and humbled women were
to be asked to give a million dollars. “They were being asked to use their
money, and they responded.”
Hunt and her team compiled stories and quotes from more than seventy
women donors and published Trailblazers, a book-length testimonial to the
power of women’s philanthropy. As women saw the stories and photos of
other women giving, they often responded with awareness and awe. “Oh
goodness, this is my tribe. I want to join; I want to be part of this group.”
History was made when the goal was exceeded: $181 million was pledged by
102 donors to 41 Women’s Funding Network member funds.
The community of Women Moving Millions (WMM) was a turning point
in the history of women’s philanthropy. Universities, foundations, and other
nonprofits had received million-dollar gifts from women, but this type of
campaign was one of the most comprehensive efforts to secure major gifts
from women and its success proved there was a large amount of untapped
capacity. Following the campaign, the plan was to formalize and create a
nonprofit-based organization. With financial support from donors and a $1.5
million grant from JP Morgan Chase, Women Moving Millions became an
official organization with Hunt as the Founder and Swanee Hunt as the Cata-
lyst (Women Moving Millions, 2020). The success of WMM inspired other
women and organizations in their quest for more women donors. Today,
WMM has raised more than $680 million. Sarah Haack Byrd, the current
CEO, launched another significant campaign in 2019 with a $100 million
goal and the theme Give Bold, Get Equal.
Hunt’s story is just one example of a woman who through experiences,
education, and a piqued interest developed an awareness of a cause that was
important to her. She came to realize she had the capacity to create change,
the financial means to inspire others to engage, and the capability to act as a
role model for other women. Her investment has left an enduring legacy and
helped launch a new phase of women’s philanthropy—one that encourages
women to give bigger and bolder.
Questions and Suggestions for Fundraisers

The historical development of women’s philanthropy demonstrates how
building awareness of women’s needs, concerns, and challenges can engage
women as supporters, advocates, prospects, and donors. Understanding this
historical context can help fundraisers think about awareness-building on
several different levels: individually, through groups or networks, or on a
community level. As women become aware of community issues and causes,
they will want to learn more. Here are some questions for fundraisers to
consider.
26 L. A. Buntz
1. Why did women create their own philanthropic funds or funding

networks? How can you avoid repeating the same frustrations women
experienced?
2. What issues in your community or organization are currently not being
addressed or solved?
3. Could women help create solutions? How?
4. What causes do the women donors you work with care about? How can
you align these causes with your organization’s mission?
Expanding the number of women interested in your cause and enhancing

the engagement of women already interested is your opportunity to ask
women to step into learning. Awareness happens through a variety of
communication methods: information and education, direct and indirect
experiences, and role-modeling. Consider these suggestions to help raise the
awareness of prospective donors (Fig. 3.1).
1. Where on this continuum of awareness would you place your current

women prospects?
2. How can you connect with them and encourage their increased partici-
pation?
3. Think about all the women in your community and network as potential
donors. This includes women of all ages, races, ethnicities, and economic
classes. How many of them do you know? Do you know how to reach
them through multiple channels of communication?
4. Many potential women donors are unaware of the needs in your commu-
nity and your job is to inform, educate, engage, and inspire. Determine
how to tell your story—this is usually called a case for support. It might
be as formal as a brochure, video, Ted Talk, article in a publication, or
a featured event. It should answer the following questions. What is the
need or issue? Why is it important? How many people are impacted by it?
How does it impact women? What will your organization do to address
• Relies on
• Unengaged in Sporadic others for • Attends events
your interest and information
Unaware organization attendance at
Demonstrates • Volunteers
• Reads interest
• Unengaged in fundraising organizational • Interested in
your cause events
emails or social causes
media posts
Fig. 3.1 The continuum of awareness

the issue? Why do you need support/philanthropic investments? How

will invested resources of time, talent, or treasure be used?
5. Pay attention to the language used in your informational materials. Will
women respond positively to the words you have chosen? Ask women to
review your materials.
6. Use your website for a “Did You Know” community update about your
cause highlighting how women are impacted.
7. Women want to be engaged on many levels, usually first as observer or
volunteer. Invite women in groups or pairs or as part of a family/couple
to learn about your cause. Women like to be invited by other women.
8. If women are interested, they will want to learn more. Your task is to
build curiosity: shock or surprise them with new information, engage
their emotions and their business sense. Observe their responses. Check
hits on social media. Anticipate the kinds of questions they may ask.
9. Take advantage of the power of role-modeling and ask a woman to be
the spokesperson for your cause.
10. Begin building relationships with prospective women donors. Invite
them to other related events or send them additional information.
Encourage them to visit a facility or to see the cause as an actual observer
or volunteer. Direct experiences are worth a million words.
11. Participate in community activities where women congregate. Establish
connections through multiple sets of networks. Use these opportunities
to “tell the story” of your work.
Bibliography
Council on Foundations. (2020). History of the council on foundations. Retrieved
May 18, 2021, from https://www.cof.org/sites/default/files/documents/files/His
tory-Council-on-Foundations.pdf
Davis, A. F. (1973). American heroine: The life and legend of Jane Addams. Oxford
University Press.
Graham Windom. (2021). About us: Graham caring for kids and families since 1806 .
Retrieved May 18, 2021, from https://www.graham-windham.org/about-us/
Grumm, C. H., Putenney, D. L., & Kishawi, E. K. (2005). Women’s biggest contri-
bution: A view of social change. In E. Clift (Ed.), Women, philanthropy, and social
change: Visions for a just society (1st ed., pp. 139–157). Tufts University Press.
Hunt L. H., (2017). And the spirit moved them: The lost radical history of America’s
first feminists (pp. 8–13). The Feminist Press.
28 L. A. Buntz
Johnson, J. M. (2017). Funding feminism: Monied women, philanthropy, and the

women’s movement, 1870–1967. The University of North Carolina Press.
Lyman, J. (2005). Exposition to a conference: How did it all start? In E. Clift (Ed.),
Women, philanthropy, and social change: Visions for a just society (1st ed., p. 17).
Tufts University Press.
McCarthy, K. D. (Ed.). (1990). Lady bountiful revisited: Women, philanthropy and
power. Rutgers University Press.
Mollner, C., & Wilson, M. C. (2005). History as prologue: The women’s funding
movement. In E. Clift (Ed.), Women, philanthropy, and social change: Visions for
a just society (1st ed., pp. 13–28). Tufts University Press.
National Organization for Women. (2021). Chronology of the equal rights amend-
ment, 1923–1996. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://now.org/resource/
chronology-of-the-equal-rights-amendment-1923-1996/
Shaw Hardy, S. (1997). The evolution of the Women’s philanthropy institute: The early
days 1987–1993. White Paper.
Shaw Hardy, S., & Taylor, M. A. (2010). Women and philanthropy: Boldly shaping a
better world . Jossey-Bass.
Women Moving Millions. (2020). Our story. Retrieved May 5, 2021, from http://
womenmovingmillions.org/about/our-story/
4
Awareness: How Women Give
If developing awareness of the history of American women’s philanthropic

giving capacity is the first step in building a philanthropic community of
women donors, the next task for fundraisers is to understand how women
approach philanthropy and their giving patterns. Are women really more
generous than men? Do they think differently about philanthropy? How do
they want to be engaged?
According to the research conducted by the Women’s Philanthropy Insti-
tute single women, are more likely to give to charity and give higher amounts
than similarly-situated men (Mesch et al., 2015a). Women prefer to distribute
their giving to multiple organizations or charities, while men tend to concen-
trate (Mesch et al., 2015a). When using technology and online giving
platforms, women give smaller gifts than men, and give to smaller charitable
organizations (Mesch et al., 2020). This last trend may discourage fundraisers
looking for donors who give major gifts, but it is important to recognize that
gift size does not necessarily equate with a donor’s capacity.
As women’s incomes rise, they become more likely to give to charity than
their male counterparts (Mesch et al., 2015b). In a restricted sample of house-
holds in the top 25% of permanent income, Baby Boomers and older women
give 156% more to charity than men (Mesch, 2012). And, the Women’s
Philanthropy Institute reports that 93% of high net worth women give to
charity compared to 87% of high net worth men (The U.S. Trust Study of
High Net Worth Philanthropy: Portraits of Generosity, 2018).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_4
30 L. A. Buntz
Women are demonstrating they have capacity and are willing to be philan-
thropic. According to the Million Dollar List, individual women gave more
than 1,686 gifts of $1 million or more between 2000 and 2016, about
31% of all gifts given by individuals (Faculty of the Lilly Family School of
Philanthropy, 2019, p. 30).
All of these facts are good news for the hundreds of philanthropic programs
working to engage women donors. The universe of women donors is broad
and varied. The Women’s Philanthropy Institute continues to research how
race, sexual identity, income, age, geography, and marital status impact
women’s giving patterns. As more information is collected, fundraisers will
be able to refine efforts to engage specific subsets of women donors.
The economic and philanthropic power women hold continues to increase.
Women earned an estimated $24 trillion worldwide in 2020 and are expected
to control $43 trillion of global consumer spending (Frost & Sullivan, 2020).
Today, women comprise half of all workers on U.S. payrolls and mothers
are the primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners of nearly two-thirds of
American families (Faculty of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2019,
p. 29). With an increase in American female labor force alone, research shows
that acceleration to the American GDP could add $5.87 trillion to the global
market capitalization over the next ten years (Peterson & Powers, 2021).
This economic power extends beyond women’s earnings. In the U.S.,
women exercise primary or joint decision-making control over $11.2 trillion,
or 39% of the $28.6 trillion national investable assets (Turner Moffitt, 2015).
Decisions about how to use current and future wealth will continue to rest in
the hands of more and more women. Finding new ways to work with women
donors should be a goal of all fund development programs.
How women practice philanthropy is as important a consideration as how
much they have to give. Making connections with others, telling their stories,
working collaboratively, aligning their interests and values with causes they
care about, creating change, using mentors, and influencing the next gener-
ation are all key elements of the ways women translate their thoughts and
ideas into action. Let’s examine these in more depth.
Connections
Relationships are built on connections. Women donors want to be connected
in a variety of ways before considering the possibility of making a financial
contribution. They want to know you—the fundraiser and your organization.
They like philanthropic causes that help them network with others, meet new
people, and allow them to work collaboratively.
More than fifty years ago, Harvard psychologist Carol Gilligan, Ph.D.,
described her research on women’s moral development in her famous book In
a Different Voice. She learned that women define who they are by describing
their relationships, while men define themselves by separation and indepen-
dence. Through the socialization process women learn to value relationships
more than rules. Women are more likely to consider moral problems in terms
of care and responsibility in relationships rather than a more typical masculine
examination of rights and rules (Gilligan, 1982, pp. 12, 16).
Given these traits, it’s not surprising that one of the most popular forms
of women’s philanthropy is one that builds on connections—Giving Circles
(GC). Colleen Willoughby of the Washington Women’s Foundation in
Seattle is frequently credited as the catalyst for this form of nonhierarchical,
inclusive, egalitarian approach to philanthropy (Shaw Hardy, 2009). GCs are
a blend of networking, socialization, and collaboration. Each woman donates
a set amount of money per year on a prearranged annual schedule in order
to join. The funds are pooled. Proposals for philanthropic investments are
presented to the membership and the women make a collective decision
about which projects to fund. Usually, there are no restrictions about what
type of nonprofit or cause to support. Asking each woman to give the same
amount of money levels the playing field, avoiding competition which many
women distain. Women have fun, learn about philanthropy and do it in
relationship with others.
The popularity of giving circles grew significantly when an article about
Willoughby’s concept appeared in People magazine in 1998 (McManus,
2020). A year later, New Ventures in Philanthropy, a project of the Forum of
Regional Associations of Grantmakers, provided $10 million in funding to
engage more people in philanthropy, some of which was focused on starting,
growing, and sustaining giving circles (Shaw Hardy, 2009). Patricia Lewis,
President of the National Network of Women as Philanthropists coined the
term Women’s Giving Circles in 2000 (Shaw Hardy, 2009). Several books on
the topic followed the explosion of this popular form of women’s philan-
thropy. Sondra Shaw Hardy wrote one of them, a workbook for creating
giving circles in 2000, and authored a second book, Women’s Giving Circles,
Reflections from the Founders, in 2009. By 2017, the Gates Foundation, the
Women’s Philanthropy Institute and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
had funded new research on giving circles; The State of Giving Circles Today:
Overview of New Research Findings from a Three-Part Study was released by the
Collective Giving Research Group. The number of giving circles has tripled
32 L. A. Buntz
since 2007. Today, there are 1,087 independently run and currently active
GC’s along with 525 chapters. About half of all GC’s operating started in
2010 or later (Bearman, 2017).
Sondra Shaw Hardy, called by some the “mother of women’s giving
circles,” continues to be one of primary thought leaders on this form of
women’s philanthropy (wgci.online). In 2017, she traveled to London to
share the story of GCs with Marliese Ammon, the wife of the German
Ambassador to Great Britain, and other women from around the world. She
said, “That visit opened my eyes to the interest in women’s philanthropy
and giving circles by so many women internationally. I found that women
across the world are primed and ready to embrace the concept, and thus was
born Women’s Giving Circles International, whose mission is to grow, birth,
and sustain women’s collective giving around the world through education,
empowerment, and engagement” (Shaw Hardy, personal communication,
August 2, 2020).
The popularity of giving circles exemplifies how important connections
are to women donors. In comparison to emphasizing giving levels, a method
used to identify donors in most traditional fund development programs and
focused on “status,” giving circles build on connectivity.
In 2021, Philanthropy Together, a new nonprofit focused on growing
the giving circle movement hosted We Give a four-week summit bringing
together hundreds of fund development professionals, giving circle leaders,
and philanthropy professionals from around the world to share innovative
ideas about giving circles. They estimate that there are currently 2,000+
giving circles globally. Their goal is to scale and strengthen this movement
to 3,000 circles, 350,000 members and give $1 billion by 2025 (https://phi
lanthropytogether.org/directory/).
Using Your Story

One of the roles of a fundraiser is as a relationship manager, helping
women build relationships with people within your organization and within
a network of women donors. From the perspective of the field of soci-
ology, there is a gender difference to charitable giving due to differences
in social networks and societal norms between males and females. Women
are more motivated than men by their “social capital,” such as upbringing,
community, and faith (Einoff, 2010). Telling stories and having our stories
listened to are among the most profound ways of making connections—facts
that fundraisers too often ignore or forget as they rush to secure a gift or
contribution.
Women’s stories reveal more than a list of chronological experiences.
Rachael Freed, a Senior Fellow at the University of Minnesota’s Center for
Spirituality and Healing, encourages women to share the stories of their
lives verbally or in writing. “We tell our stories to transform ourselves,”
she says. “We use our stories to make a difference in the world and
broaden our perspective to see further than normal” (Freed, 2011). The
power of storytelling has long been recognized as having substantial impacts
on psychological and physical health. Some of the benefits of storytelling
include:
(a) realizing your story can help others

(b) finding your voice, helping to structure your life events
(c) re-affirming your values
(d) finding peace and hope (Hamby, 2013).
While looking at data and analyzing the potential of donor prospects is

very important, meeting with someone and asking her to share a bit about
herself is a rich and enlightening experience. But it won’t happen in one
luncheon or meeting; it happens over time while relationships grow. Consider
for example, Diane Ballweg’s story.
Diane Ballweg
Ballweg has an impressive philanthropic resume. President of the Endres
Manufacturing Family Foundation and a major shareholder in Endres Manu-
facturing, she serves on the Kennedy Center National Committee for the
Performing Arts in Washington, DC, is president of the Dane County
Community Foundation in Madison, Wisconsin, and has served on more
than twenty other boards. But it certainly wasn’t clear in her upbringing or
early adulthood that she would come to hold these positions.
The granddaughter of Lawrence M. Endres, founder in 1926 of L. M.
Endres Manufacturing in Waunakee, Wisconsin, and daughter of Larry Jr.,
she watched as her family grew the company into one of the most successful
structural steel businesses in the country. Her father was the CEO and her
mother, Leona, became the first full-time bookkeeper after giving up her
nursing career following the birth of Diane’s brother in 1957. Ballweg didn’t
really have a place in the company, a traditionally male-dominated business.
34 L. A. Buntz
As she put it, “I have one brother and he wasn’t interested in the company.
In that day and age, if you wanted to pass on the family business - and it
was steel construction - you sure weren’t going to pass it on to your daugh-
ter” (Ballweg, personal communication, August 1, 2018). So, she pursued a
music degree and taught special education and music.
In 1965 Ken Ballweg joined the company while attending the University of
Wisconsin at Madison. After graduation he served a term in the Army Reserve
and later returned to the company. While working there he met Diane and
they married in 1974. “I always said, if you couldn’t get your son to work in
the business, the next best thing was a son-in-law. It was kind of an arrange-
ment marriage,” Ballweg chuckles. After Larry Endres’s retirement in 1990,
Ken was named CEO.
In the late 1990s Diane was looking for something more, something that
was her own, and she found it through learning to fly. At age 45, she obtained
her pilot license, a dream she had pursued secretly, hesitant to share her ambi-
tions with her family. Her husband didn’t find out about it until he read an
article in the local newspaper about her as a pilot.
Just over 5% of all pilots are female. For the first time, Ballweg was entering
a world dominated by men, and was intent on making her mark. “When I
first started taking flying lessons, an instructor told me, ‘If God had meant
for women to fly, he would have made the sky pink. You can see that it’s
blue.’”
“He was a good instructor,” she continued, “but an older, chauvinistic
guy. So, I became known as the pink pilot. I decided to use the joking and
demeaning comments and turn them into something positive.” Pursuing her
pilot’s license taught Ballweg to be fierce and dedicated in her goals. “It helped
me become visible to others, especially my family.”
When her father died in 2006, he left his shares of the family business
to her. Surprised that her brother or husband did not get a portion of the
shares, she asked the family attorney, “Why?” Like a parent speaking to her
from the grave, he said, “Your father saw the potential in you. He trusted you
and wanted you to be part of the business. Your dad saw how you had grown
and changed.”
As much as I loved my dad, sometimes I feel like pounding on the table
and saying, ‘Why didn’t you do this when you were alive?” Ballweg said.
Given what we know about women’s needs for connectedness, it’s not
surprising that Ballweg went in search of other women in charge of fortunes.
She recalls joining Women Moving Millions in the early years of its founding,
“Through Women Moving Millions, women were taught to question their
giving, get involved in the selection, and give where it makes the most differ-
ence to impact the world: health, education, peace, safety, environment, and
a diverse array of women-led missions and businesses” (Ballweg, personal

communication, August 1, 2018). The energy and momentum of WMM
helped Ballweg to connect with other women of wealth and to encourage
each other to be bolder about their giving.
After attending a 2010 retreat in New Mexico that Helen LaKelly Hunt
hosted, and inspired by Hunt’s goals for the WMM campaign, Ballweg
created a list that was the culmination of her thoughts and priorities about
how to help women and girls. The causes she selected included local programs
in Wisconsin, scholarships for female student aviators, women’s healthcare,
nursing scholarships, and global educational programs for girls in Rwanda
through World Vision.
So many insights about Ballweg’s life and career path inform a professional
fundraiser. The evolution of her philanthropic interests from passive donor
with limited philanthropic power to leading her family’s foundation provides
many lines of inquiry a fundraiser could follow to help determine what a
donor’s priorities are now and may be in the future.
With Ballweg, for example, exploring how each of her major life interests
(music, flying, owning a business) changed her perspective on philanthropy
would fill many meetings. Asking what she learned from each of those experi-
ences and how she would like to use those lessons to help others would begin
to reveal her values and priorities. Her desire for recognition and achievement
were motivational factors in her very successful career as a pilot. Asking her
how she could help other women working in male-dominated professions
could spark new philanthropy opportunities for her.
Ballweg found a network through WMM. Her introduction into the world
of women’s philanthropy was an opportunity to learn from other women, to
understand how she would influence the lives of other girls and women, to
be braver about her philanthropy and strategic in her giving. Making a list of
causes that she would like to fund was the first step in developing her prior-
ities for giving. Reviewing this list annually helps her plan and predict what
she wants to accomplish. A fundraiser could begin to present opportunities
to her that align with her interests and values, ask her to engage her friends
and dream big. Never underestimate the power of a story.
Identifying Interests and Values

Our values are an expression of our lives. When women donors begin to
learn about philanthropy and to practice it, they develop a greater aware-
ness of their interests and values. These insights are critically important as
36 L. A. Buntz
they become more engaged in philanthropic investments. In future chapters,

suggestions for helping women align their values with philanthropy and to
become more strategic in their choices will be provided.
Studies indicate that becoming invested in a cause and giving to it actually
increases life satisfaction for single women, single men, and married couples
(Mesch et al., 2017). Yet, single men see the greatest increase in life satisfac-
tion when they become donors, while single and married women experience
increased satisfaction when they increase their giving (Mesch et al., 2017).
Initially women give to those causes that pique their interests and the reasons
can be as varied as being asked by a friend or colleague to participate in
a school fundraiser to making a contribution to a cause that has person-
ally touched her life. When women’s interests and values are not defined,
they experiment and respond with a contribution when asked, but with little
emotional or personal investment. Neither women nor fundraisers view this
as “women’s philanthropy.”
Initially, women may not link their interests with their values. As they
seek to learn more about causes presented to them and to investigate issues
in more depth, the connection between their interests as an expression of
their values begins to resonate with the realization that their investments will
have an impact. They may start asking themselves, “Why is this important to
me?” or, “What could I do about that?” Choices become more deliberate and
distinct. Understanding the relationship between women’s philanthropy and
cause is important for fundraisers because it can help them structure conver-
sations and interactions with women prospects. The following two stories
are examples of women, who through life experiences and self-exploration,
began to identify their interests and values, influencing their philanthropic
decisions.
Dee Ann McIntyre

Dee Ann McIntyre came into the world of philanthropy late in life. Her
family was never in a position to be philanthropic, so learning how to give
money didn’t occur until after she married Scotty McIntyre. They met when
she worked as a regional manager for a national insurance trade association
in Chicago and called on Scotty to persuade him that his company should
join the association. He was the CEO of a second-generation, family-owned
insurance business that had developed and thrived in the Midwest. Born with
cerebral palsy, Scotty was an intellectual with an uncanny business sense, a
biting sense of humor, and a generous spirit. He had a history of philan-

thropy, having donated to many capital campaigns and nonprofits, and he
approached philanthropy from a business sense, according to Dee Ann. He
wanted to know that the organizations he donated to were well run. Having
made a lot of money, he felt it was his responsibility to give back, especially
to the community that had supported his business.
Dee Ann and Scotty married in Santa Fe, a favorite spot for Dee Ann,
an artist, art collector, world traveler, and photographer. For fifteen years she
observed her husband’s philanthropy. He created a foundation that gave phil-
anthropic contributions in addition to his personal gifts and his company
gifts. He had favorite charities and special relationships built on trust. After
their move to Santa Fe, Dee Ann watched and listened as Scotty practiced
philanthropy in his new community.
After his death in 2009, McIntyre inherited significant resources. For the
first time in her life, she had the ability to make philanthropic investments
and influence the philanthropic decisions at the McIntyre Foundation where
she holds a seat as a board member. She was approached by many nonprofits
asking her to consider charitable causes Scotty had supported in the past.
Having not been raised in his community, her first job was to learn about
the nonprofit organizations he favored and to seek guidance from some of
his closest friends. The foundation he established was a good bridge for
contributions while Dee Ann learned and began to make her own deci-
sions on investments. For the first several years, there was very little change.
Her philanthropy was reactive in response to requests, but also targeted at
children’s issues and cultural arts. She knew over time she would have to
develop a unique sense of philanthropy and determine the causes she wanted
to support.
Slowly she began adding her own connections and interests to the mix.
Having confidence in the leadership of an organization was an important part
of her decision-making process, as was building connections to the people
and the causes. Numerous fundraisers spent time with Dee Ann getting to
know her and her interests so they could begin to understand her values and
philosophy about philanthropy.
Several causes are near and dear to McIntyre, including child-focused
projects, the arts, the environment, and the Cerebral Palsy Research Foun-
dation, obviously sparked through her personal experience with Scotty. Her
passion for art, fueled by connections to a wide variety of artists, a second resi-
dence in Santa Fe, and her grandson, Chris, a young photographer looking
for opportunities to grow, learn, and exhibit his work, resulted in increasing
her support for many art-related causes, particularly helping new artists get
38 L. A. Buntz
recognized and new grassroots organizations launched. One of her most

important community investments is the New Mexico School for the Arts
where she is a board member (McIntyre, personal communication, August
30, 2017).
More recently she has invested time and money in global philanthropy for
women through the GoPhilanthropic Foundation, a nonprofit based in Santa
Fe. Through the Santa Fe Women’s International Study Center, she is helping
launch new women artists, filmmakers, and writers. She sponsored an Iowa
Writers’ Workshop Scholar to come to Santa Fe for a month to teach creative
writing, and supported children’s programs in Nicaragua and Guatemala.
These organizations and projects are personal to Dee Ann. She has the ability
to do so much for many nonprofits, but the investments that make her
feel intensely happy are those that help artists develop their creativity, help
children succeed, and help the environment and women thrive.
Tracy Gary
Another woman who traveled the values clarification path is Tracy, a legend
in the women’s philanthropy world. Author of Inspired Philanthropy and
founder of twenty-three nonprofits, Gary embodies the evolution of strategic
giving. Born into wealth, her socialite mother was a scion of the Pillsbury
family and her grandfather held the patent for the dial telephone. As a
teenager in the 1960s she was told she would inherit millions of dollars. For
some that would be like winning the lottery, for Gary it was scary.
There was an imbalance between how much money she observed her
parents making each week and what the staff at their family home was paid.
This inequality gnawed at Gary until she decided to do something about it.
As Gary witnessed the needs in communities, nonprofit organizations, and
vulnerable populations, she made it her mission to become a broker, to match
wealthy donors with needs. She resolved to give away a significant portion of
her inheritance by her 35th birthday.
Gary visited hundreds of organizations and became familiar with the work
of many social service agencies. She protested the Vietnam War and sought
to turn around the attitudes of mega-rich matriarchs such as those of the Levi
Strauss and Hewlett Packard fortunes who gave exclusively to museums, art
galleries and private colleges.
Gary had a focused mission and purpose. Her enthusiasm, energy and
passion are evident in her stories and work with donors. She truly believes
that investing in people and nonprofits-in-need has brought her much more
joy than just buying more things. Her values have aligned with and influenced
her philanthropy. For the last 40 years, Gary has significantly influenced
women’s philanthropy: she has raised more than $750 million, leveraged
billions for social justice change, and donated the majority of her wealth
to nonprofit causes with an emphasis on supporting women and girls.
Another mission of Gary’s was to help wealthy families learn how to use
their resources. Her book Inspired Philanthropy is a step-by-step guide used
by many fund development professionals and donors.
Every fundraiser would like to meet a Dee Ann McIntyre or Tracy Gary,
but you will only know you’re meeting one of them by listening carefully to
their stories, and perhaps by helping them explore their interests and values.
Here are questions that will help:
1. What are three concerns you have about your community, country, the
world?
2. Identify your top three interests in life.
3. Identify your top three values.
4. Name three issues or topics that excite you and that you would like to
learn more about.
5. How do you like to learn about topics that interest you?
6. Name three ways that you would like to get involved with these interests
and causes.
Writing down one’s interests and values makes them explicit, helping
prospective donors think about how they might be actualized through phil-
anthropic investments. For some women, answering the questions above in
writing before they talk with a fundraiser will be helpful. For others, following
up the conversation with the request that she think about it and answer the
questions in writing will provide the space and time she needs to take an
inventory of her priorities in a thoughtful, private space.
Create Change
When men have money and think about philanthropy, they often use it to
advance themselves with a name on a building or donating to a college or
hospital. They’re not shy about promoting what they have done. According
to Debra Mesch, the former Director of the Women’s Philanthropy Program
at Indiana University, “Women are not socialized to brag or have their names
on things” (Chira, 2018). A recent Harvard Business Review study found that
40 L. A. Buntz
women in emerging markets reinvest 90% of every dollar earned into human
resources, their families, education, health, and nutrition, compared to only
30–40% of every dollar earned by men (VanderBrug, 2013). Women differ
from men in how they perceive wealth. While they see wealth as providing
financial security and independence, just as men do, once these priorities are
met, women look to wealth to provide a larger basket of goods, not just for
themselves and their families, but also for society. Fully 90% of women in
the global sample conducted by the Center for Talent Innovation say making
a positive impact on society is important. Women much more than men, at
least in the developed world, want to invest according to their values (Turner
Moffitt, 2015).
This impact can happen in many different forms: a long-term invest-
ment, a sizeable financial contribution, or the creation of a new and different
approach to philanthropy as Lila Igram did.
Lila Igram
As a young Muslim woman and entrepreneur, Igram knew she wanted to
help women on a global level but didn’t have the resources to work with
the thousands of causes and organizations that existed, so she built a virtual
organization. ConnectHER is a crowdfunding and communications plat-
form matching donors to causes. It creates and supports on-the-ground
projects in developing communities in the Middle East, Africa, Southeast
Asia, and South America. It also creates awareness of social and economic
issues affecting women globally through the ConnectHER Film Festival in
partnership with the Harvard Social Innovation Collaborative.
The festival encourages high school and undergraduate students to submit
short films that address women’s global issues and are judged by a panel of
stellar supporters including Elizabeth Avellan, Hollywood producer of the
Spy Kids series, and Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy, an Oscar-winning documen-
tary filmmaker. Over $75,000 in scholarships have been awarded to the
winners.
ConnectHER awarded a grant to Leymah Gbowee for her peace work
in Liberia, and in 2016 helped host fifty film screenings all over the world
for International Women’s Day. ConnectHER funds a women’s develop-
ment center in Pakistan, financial self-sufficiency programs in Zimbabwe,
and education programs for girls in Afghanistan. Igram and her team have
garnered support from Eloise De Joira, an actress and entertainer based in
Austin, TX, the Ian Somerhalder Foundation, and the Stahl Foundation.
Igram has created change through women, causes, and connections (Igram,
personal communication, July 19, 2019).
Fundraisers can use creativity as one of the most exciting and useful aspects
of a women’s philanthropy initiative. Creating solutions in collaboration with
others is a bonding experience, one that honors and respects the donor’s ideas
and interests while fundraisers softly mold the range of options. Offer some
initial ideas to start the conversation, then ask a woman donor how to solve a
problem and you will be amazed at the ideas that emerge. Some of them will
be useful and practical, depending on the time and resources available, and
others may be pipe dreams. The most important aspect of this interchange
is to ask and then use some of the ideas to create a path to philanthropy.
When women’s foundations developed in the 1970s, one of the guiding prin-
ciples was to engage recipients of services to help create solutions. Creating
solutions can be a rich mix of conversations among donors, recipients and
professionals. Use your women donors as your dream team. They will have
ideas, time and treasure. Their input establishes a personal investment in the
cause and solutions; they have their footprint on it, will want to see it succeed,
and the likelihood of a financial contribution will increase.
Influencing the Next Generation

Surveys with women donors document that women talk more openly about
money than do men, talk to their children about inheritance and estate plans
more often than do men, and believe it’s important to leave a legacy to
the next generation (Damen & McCuistion, 2010). Family is important to
women and investments in their communities or causes that impact families
are usually high on the list of their priorities. Women want to learn about
philanthropy themselves, but they also want to share what they know and
pass on their knowledge and practices to their children.
But women can be uncomfortable with wealth. “Girls, as they are growing
up, are not socialized to feel that it’s okay for them to have ambition about
creating wealth, not the way it is for little boys,” says Mariko Chang, author
of Shortchanged , a study of the wealth gap between men and women (Chira,
2018). Sex differences begin in the ways daughters are treated by their
parents, particularly their fathers, suggests Cynthia Ryan of the Schooner
Foundation. Men feel entitled to money and are more comfortable with it,
while women rarely take money for granted (Ryan, 2005, p. 185).
More recently, researchers are beginning to examine how philanthropy
can be taught, asking if it is a learned behavior. Parents have asked how to
42 L. A. Buntz
best transmit “the generosity gene” to succeeding generations. A recent study

suggested that “If only 5% of the assets projected to pass from Americans’
estates over the next decade were captured for philanthropy, it could create
the equivalent of 10 Gates Foundations” (Joselyn, 2018). This predicted
intergenerational transfer of wealth opens up substantial possibilities. An
understanding of how parents transmit the behavior and beliefs of chari-
table giving to their children is critical. The Women’s Philanthropy Institute
Faculty summarized the most recent research on this subject.
• Adult children, both sons and daughters, whose parents give to charity are
more likely to give to charity.
• The relationship between parents’ giving and adult daughters’ giving is
stronger than the relationship between that of parents and adult sons.
• Parental frequency of giving matters more for adult daughters than for
adult sons.
• The sex differences in how parents’ giving relates to their adult daughters’
and sons’ giving is influenced more by parents who have higher incomes
and assets.
• For parents who have wealth over $100,000, a daughter’s likelihood of
giving is 27% higher if her parents give (Mesch et al., 2018).
Women can influence the philanthropic behavior of their children, specif-

ically daughters, through their behavior, giving patterns, and conversation.
Karen Herman
One family taking seriously the job of teaching philanthropy to the next
generation is the Hermans of Kansas City, Kansas. In 1985, while their
children were young, Karen and Mike Herman were one of the first fami-
lies to establish a fund at the local Kansas City Community Foundation.
Karen recalls their twelve-year-old son reading about his father’s salary in the
paper and commenting on their family wealth, so introducing the concept of
philanthropy was a natural evolution. Karen says, “We wanted to teach our
children that with wealth comes responsibility.”
Their partnership with the Kansas City Community Foundation where the
Herman Family Fund is held is just one example of how they invest in their
community. Family funds generate interest and every year a percentage of
the funds can be used for charitable contributions; the family decides where
these donations will be made. When their fund was established, the Hermans
told their children that everyone gets a vote when it comes to making phil-
anthropic decisions, although Karen admits that the first time her daughter
disagreed with her, she was a bit shocked. “They take their role as decision
makers very seriously,” she said.
While Mike has served as the President of the Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation, Karen has served as President of the Kansas City Women’s Foun-
dation. Each year the Women’s Foundation presents an award named after
her. “The Karen Herman Advocate for Women and Girls” award is given to
a philanthropist who exemplifies leadership, mentorship and acts as a change
agent for the Women’s Foundation. Today, Karen and her daughter talk
frequently about what causes should be supported and why. The generosity
gene is definitely at work in the Herman household (Herman, personal
communication, September 5, 2018).
As demonstrated by the rise in donor-advised funds at community foun-
dations and other wealth management firms, multigenerational giving is
becoming very popular. Family foundations established by Baby Boomer
parents will continue the legacy of family wealth while encouraging the next
generation to continue to give. Fundraisers need to think about women
donors in terms of grandmothers, mothers, daughters, and granddaughters.
Acts of volunteering, giving and the frequency of both are factors influencing
children and encouraging them to be philanthropic. Fundraisers can share
this information with women donors, teaching them how to help build the
next generation of givers. Consider developing a multigenerational giving
program, encouraging parents to match gifts given by their children.
Giving Counsel: Mentoring

Ask a woman donor how she learned about philanthropy and most will
mention someone who influenced them. It may be a parent, teacher, family
member, neighbor, colleague or boss. A woman donor has usually observed
the actions of others, listened to their stories, and come away with ideas about
philanthropy. The ideas may be fuzzy and unformed, but they lie within their
psyche waiting to emerge at the right moment and time. Other women have
been specifically instructed how to be involved in philanthropic endeavors,
usually through professional colleagues; it may be part of their career advance-
ment path or an expectation within their workplace. Research on the impact
of mentors in the field of women’s philanthropy is very limited and mostly
anecdotal, but that doesn’t diminish its importance.
44 L. A. Buntz
The stories of how women learned to be fruitfully philanthropic are as

varied as their philanthropy, but it always comes back to a relationship with
someone important and influential in their lives. Mentors who have influ-
enced others are genuine about their choices and actions. They walk the
talk, living their philanthropy as well as talking about it. Just as women
want to influence the next generation and their own families, they also have
the opportunity to influence other women in their professional and social
networks, acting as a mentor.
Carla Harris
Carla Harris had a mentor and is a mentor to thousands of women today.
Currently Vice Chairman and Managing Director at Morgan Stanley, a
performer at Carnegie Hall, an advocate for working women, conference
presenter, Harvard graduate, and author of two books, Harris is a force of
nature. Tall, beautiful, Black, she influences young women everywhere when
she talks about business, her career path, and how to build confidence.
Harris was born in Port Arthur, Texas, and raised in Jacksonville, Florida.
As a teenager, she sang in the Catholic and Baptist church choirs and has
always had a passion for music as well as finance. Inspired by her mother
and grandmother, Harris never settled for A; it was always, go for the A+.
After graduating from Harvard with undergraduate and graduate degrees,
she accepted a job at Morgan Stanley. Being a woman of color had barriers,
although as Harris noted in an interview for ForbesWomen in 2016, her
plumbing was more of a problem than her color (Marcus, 2016).
Her entrance into philanthropy began with volunteering and going to
nursing homes as part of the Anchor Club in high school. When her career
brought her to New York City, she met Austin Fitts, one of the most senior
women on Wall Street. Fitts introduced her to the New York City Food Bank
and encouraged her to get involved. “I couldn’t get my mind around the fact
that in a city as rich as New York City there were people literally making the
decision every day whether to have a roof over their heads or eat… The board
thought they were going to work themselves out of job. They convinced me
that in five years there would be no need for the food bank.”
Well, that didn’t happen. But Harris’s introduction to philanthropy was
ignited and she continued to be involved as a donor and advisor. “I started
my philanthropy as a first-year associate and never looked back.” She has
served on eight nonprofit boards and continues to advise other nonprofit
directors and to serve as a connector to other philanthropists in the city.
Harris remembers watching numerous colleagues at Morgan Stanley act very

philanthropically and is grateful to have had those mentors, both male and
female. Now, she prioritizes education, hunger, healthcare and the arts as her
philanthropic priorities. She continues to present at conferences, inspiring
others to step up and be bold. As she says, “Girl, own your power. Take risks.
Don’t be afraid. Be yourself, be authentic, and don’t give your power away”
(Harris, personal communication, October 18, 2017).
Fundraisers can use mentoring as a strategy to connect women who want
to learn about philanthropy with seasoned donors. Younger or inexperienced
donors want to create relationships with women they respect and admire and
they want access to them. Being a conduit between the seasoned and the
new is an easy way to build awareness about causes and to teach the young
how to practice philanthropy. Consider inviting successful women donors
to present a panel discussion on how they learned about philanthropy and
invite younger or less experienced donors. Match a current donor with a new
woman prospect, developing a mentoring relationship. Ask a seasoned donor
to challenge a new woman donor to begin giving by offering to match her
gift to a specific cause. Share stories from current donors about a mentor who
influenced their philanthropic practice and publish it to build awareness.
Universities, United Ways, and other nonprofits have developed mentoring
programs and opportunities as part of their women’s philanthropy initiatives,
recognizing the power of women connecting to other women.
Bibliography
Bearman, J., Carboni, J., Eikenberry, A., & Franklin, J. (2017). The state of giving
circles today: Overview of new research findings from a three-part study. Collective
Giving Research Group.
Chira, S. (2018, March 10). Money is power: And women need more of both. The
New York Times. Retrieved May 24, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.cop/2018/
sunday-review/women-money-politics-power.html
Damen, M. M., & McCuistion, N. N. (2010). Women, wealth and giving: The
virtuous cycle of the boom generation. Wiley.
Faculty of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. (2019). Eight myths of U.S.
philanthropy. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 17 (4), 29, 30.
Freed, R. (2011, November 15). The importance of telling our stories. Huffington
Post. Retrieved June 29, 2018, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/legacy-tel
ling-our-story_b_776195
Frost & Sullivan. (2020). Retrieved March 3, 2021, from https://ww2.frost.com/
news/press-release/global-female-income-to-reach-24-trillion-in-2020-says-frost-
sullivan/
46 L. A. Buntz
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.

Harvard University Press.
Hamby, S. (2013, September 3). The four benefits of sharing your story. Psychology
Today. Retrieved January 3, 2019, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/
blog/the-web-violence/201309/resilience-and-4-benefits-sharing-your-story
Joselyn, H. (2018). $9 Trillion will transfer from Americans’ estates, new analysis
says. Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved November 2, 2019, from https://www.
philanthropy.com/article/9-trillion-will-transfer-from-americans-estates-new-ana
lysis-says/
Marcus, B. (2016, March). Carla Harris was raised to be a winner. Retrieved January
7, 2019, from ForbesWomen. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bonniemarcus/2016/
03/16/Carla-harris-was-born-to-be-a-winner/?sh=1d9cc5157f4
McManus, D. (2020, September 30). Giving circles: A womanly approach to philan-
thropy. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from, https://www.lustre.net/home/2020/9/
25/ddssalzlm1zw2et5kfh73tpj3pna
Mesch, D. (2012). Women give 2012: New research about women and giving.
Women’s Philanthropy Institute.
Mesch, D., O’Gara Lamb, E., Osili, U., Pactor, A., Ackerman, J., Dale, E., Bergdoll,
J., Kalugyer, A. D., Scholl, J., Ware, A., & Hyatte, C. (2015a). How and
why women give: Future directions for research on women’s philanthropy. Women’s
Philanthropy Institute.
Mesch, D., Osili, U., Pactor, A., Ackerman, J., Bergdoll, J., Kalugyer, A. D.,
Scholl, J., Ware A., Hyatte, C., Dale, E., Hawash, R., & Yang, Y. (2015b). Do
women give more? Findings on three unique data sets on charitable giving. Women’s
Mesch, D., Osili, U., Okten, C., Han, X., Pactor, A., & Ackerman, J. (2017).
Women give 17: Charitable giving and life satisfaction: Does gender matter?
Mesch, D., Osili, U., Ackerman, J., Bergdoll, J., Skidmore, T., Pactor A., & Sager
J. (2020). Women give 2020: New forms of giving in a digital age: Powered by
technology, creating community. Women’s Philanthropy Institute.
Mesch, D., Ottoni-Wilhelm, M., Osili, U., Bergdoll, J., Han, X., Pactor, A., &
Ackerman, J. (2018). womengive18, Transmitting Generosity to Daughters and
Sons. Women’s Philanthropy Institute.
Peterson, D. L., & Powers, T. (2021). Women as the drivers of economic growth.
S&P Global. Retrieved February 10, 2021, from https://www.spglobal.com/en/
research-insights/featured/women-as-drivers-of-economic-growth
Retrieved December 27, 2021, https://philanthropytogether.org/directory
Ryan, C. (2005). From cradle to grave: Challenges and opportunities of inherited
wealth. In E. Clift (Ed.), Women, philanthropy, and social change: Visions for a just
society (1st ed., pp. 182). Tufts University Press.
Shaw Hardy, S. (1997). The evolution of The Women’s Philanthropy Institute: The early
days, 1987–1993 (White Paper).
Shaw Hardy, S. (2009). Women’s giving circles: Reflections from the founders. Women’s
Turner Moffitt, A. (2015). Harnessing the power of the purse: Winning women
investors. Rare Bird Books.
The U.S. Trust Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy: Portraits of Generosity.
(2018). U.S. Trust, Bank of America and IUPUI, Lilly Family School of
Philanthropy. p. 11.
VanderBrug, J. (2013, September 13). The global rise of female entrepreneurs.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved December 5, 2019, from https://hbr.org/
2013/09/global-rise-of-female-entrepreneurs
Women’s Giving Circles International. Retrieved May 21, 2021, from https://www.
wgci.online/our-story
5
Assessing Your Donors
Wealth Acquisition and Giving History

The three primary avenues for wealth acquisition are inheritance, marriage,
and earned income. Inherited wealth occurs most often through familial rela-
tionships when parents pass on assets to their children. Marital wealth is the
combined assets of a couple acquired through work or inheritance. Earned
wealth is the accumulation of assets achieved through career, business or
professional employment. We find women philanthropists in all three cate-
gories and many have developed their asset base through a combination of
them.
The Rockefeller Foundation describes a phenomenon called “dual wealth
transfer” that will significantly impact these women. Baby Boomers (1946–
1964) make up 23% of the U.S. population and many are entering or already
in retirement. Often their parents, the Depression Era saving generation, have
now died and passed on their life savings to children, many of whom are
married. According to a Global Wealth Study, 56% of Baby Boomer women
accumulated their wealth through inheritance, the first wealth transfer iden-
tified by the Rockefeller Foundation (RBC, 2018). The second occurs when
a spouse dies. Considering that the life expectancy of American women is
nearly seven years longer than men, the likelihood of women being the recip-
ients of their parents’ and their spouse’s wealth is fairly high, creating a
tremendous wealth opportunity for women as they age.
Intergenerational transfers of wealth account for at least 50%, and perhaps
as much as 80%, of the net worth of American families (Hirsch, 2011).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_5
50 L. A. Buntz
Children of wealthy families often end up controlling the family fortune.

Consider these examples of women inheriting family wealth, controlling
some of the largest family foundations in the U.S., and influencing what
investments their families will make in communities, countries and causes.
• Warren Buffet’s daughter, Susie, manages the Buffett Foundation.

• Michael Bloomberg’s daughter, Emma, sits on the board of The Bloomberg
Philanthropies.
• Linda Johnson Rice is the former CEO of Johnson Publishing and
daughter of John H. Johnson, founder of Johnson Publishing. Her mother,
Eunice Johnson, was producer and director of Ebony Magazine.
• Carrie Walton-Penner, a third generation of the Walmart Waltons, is the
board chair of the Walton Family Foundation.
• Laura Kohler, great-granddaughter of Kohler Co. founder John Michael
Kohler, manages the company’s corporate social responsibility strategies.
Numerous philanthropists have commented on family wealth and inher-

itance. The most notable have been Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren
Buffet, who together designed The Giving Pledge in 2009. This effort
targeted the ultra-wealthy (billionaires) asking people to pledge or donate
at least half of their wealth to philanthropy. It was hailed as the biggest
fundraising drive in history (Gunter, 2019). More than 210 people signed
on; 10 are single women, 155 are from the U.S., 111 are married couples; 2
couples who originally signed on have divorced. The wives of the divorced
couples have continued their commitment to The Giving Pledge. Most
notable is MacKenzie Scott, former wife of Jeff Bezos. Her recent gifts
totaling more than $8 billion distributed among more than 200 organiza-
tions demonstrates how seriously she takes her commitment to philanthropic
investments.
Inheriting vast sums of money may seem like winning the lottery, but
Gates and Buffet have noted that there is a corrosive nature to inherited
wealth. “Leave enough money to your children so they feel they could do
anything, but not so much that they could do nothing,” Buffet has said.
Bill and Melinda Gates agreed. “We are strong believers that dynastic wealth
is both bad for society and the children involved. We want our children to
make their own way in the world. They will have all sorts of advantages, but
it will be up to them to create their lives and careers” (Callahan, 2017, p. 43).
Barbara Blouin uses a term coined by Joanie Bronfman author of The Expe-
rience of Inherited Wealth: A Social-Psychological Perspective in discussing the
challenges and opportunities of being an heir. “One of the phenomena that
wealthy people experience is what some social psychologists term wealthism”

(Blouin, 1987) she says in For Love and/or Money: The Impact of Inherited
Wealth on Relationships. Wealthism, a set of attitudes or actions that dehu-
manize or objectify wealthy people, including resentment, envy and awe,
differs from other “isms” in that racism and sexism are perpetrated by those
who have power whereas wealthism is directed at those who have power
(Blouin, 1987).
One of the most difficult things for anyone who is financially secure,
whether their wealth is inherited or earned, is to answer the question, “What
can I do to make a difference?” For anyone taking his or her wealth seriously,
it is a very big question. Many women heirs struggle with their identity, their
purpose in life, and their unearned bank account. Donna Hall of the Women
Donor Network has concluded that, at least anecdotally, older women are
more apologetic about their inheritance, even ashamed at times. Women
under thirty-five seem more comfortable with money and social power (Ryan,
2005). No matter their ages, one of the biggest challenges women who have
inherited great wealth face is determining what to do with their fortunes;
consider for example Abigail Disney.
Inherited Wealth—Abigail Disney

The granddaughter of Roy O. Disney, co-founder, with his brother Walt, of
The Walt Disney Company, she grew up in southern California. After high
school she left the west coast to attend Yale. As a member of the Disney
family, she had automatically been given a seat on the family foundation
board at age eighteen, although she didn’t really know what serving on the
board meant. She didn’t have any preparation regarding her role and though
there was money to give, the board had established neither a process for grant
distribution nor priorities for their funding. Decisions were made without a
lot of strategic thought or education.
After moving to the east coast and working on her bachelor’s and master’s
degrees in literature, Disney began to yearn for more purpose in her life. She
had purposely avoided working in the film industry, trying to steer clear of
any connection to the Disney dynasty; an advanced degree in the fine arts
seemed like a good alternative. As she was struggling to complete the last
phase of her education, a Ph.D. from Columbia University, she stumbled
into philanthropy through friends and travel abroad.
Volunteering had not been part of her life, because as she said, coming
from a famous family, her inclination was to be rather reserved with other
52 L. A. Buntz
people. However, volunteering became a solution to feelings of emptiness.

She got connected to the Robin Hood Foundation in New York, an aspiring
young nonprofit organization. Founded in 1988 by hedge fund manager Paul
Tudor Jones, its mission is to alleviate problems caused by poverty in New
York City. There she learned about grant making, nonprofits, and commu-
nity building. As she said, “Once you open the door, especially if you have
money, all these other doors go flying open.” She joined the New York
Women’s Foundation and eleven other boards. While starting her family and
becoming a mother, she was falling in love with philanthropy. She admits to
being a maximalist. “I have a hard time saying no to anything and frankly
when you perceive yourself to have so much more than everyone else, it’s
hard to say no to anything because it’s really hard to know when you’re
doing enough. So, I got swallowed up in it pretty quickly” (Disney, personal
communication, December 15, 2017). In 1991, she and her husband, Pierre
Hauser, created The Daphne Foundation which distributes grants to orga-
nizations that empower residents directly affected by poverty, violence, and
discrimination in five boroughs in New York City.
After her last child started school, Disney finally felt she had some freedom
to travel and explore, so when Swanee Hunt asked her to go to Liberia
with a delegation of women, she accepted. “Swanee had been an ambassador
and had gotten very interested in international relations, especially the role
women play in conflict resolution and peacebuilding,” said Disney. Although
she didn’t believe that she had anything to offer, she was interested in learning.
What she found was that women in Liberia had played an essential role in
peace building during the country’s second civil war. “I came home realizing
there was an important story to tell. You know, I had avoided filmmaking like
the plague, but a film was the right thing to do with this information and I
just couldn’t come home and pretend I didn’t know it. So, in 2006, I got a
director and funded the film myself. It definitely did better than I ever, ever,
ever in my wildest dreams thought it would and it opened the door to a whole
bunch more filmmaking” (Disney, personal communication, December 15,
2017).
The film, Pray the Devil Back to Hell , is about Liberian women praying
for peace to protect their children and their community. The protagonist,
Leymah Gbowee, helped to organize and lead the Liberian Mass Action
for Peace, which brought together Christian and Muslim women in a
nonviolent movement engaging in public protest, confronting Liberia’s ruth-
less president, and even holding a sex strike. The movement brought the
second Liberian Civil War to an end in 2003. Eight years later, Gbowee
shared the Nobel Peace Prize with fellow Liberian Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and
Yemen-native Tawakkol Karman for this work.
“I approached filmmaking as a political act,” Disney said. Her films explore
difficult social justice issues. In addition to The Daphne Foundation, she
personally gives money to many causes. “I like the freedom of being able to
just write a check and I don’t have to be accountable to anyone. I can be flex-
ible and quick.” She estimates that she gives away between $2 and 3 million
annually. “Generosity has never been the wrong choice for me. Money is only
an instrument. Philanthropy has to be rooted in love.”
Disney learned a lot about philanthropy from Helen LaKelly Hunt and the
New York Women’s Foundation. They taught her how to give, how to under-
stand women’s issues, and how to be strategic. Over time her philanthropy
has evolved. After years of making grants through the Daphne Foundation,
she finally wrote a mission statement. “I decided to retroactively understand
what I had been doing, so the unifying word as I understand it now is peace.
I am interested in women, because I am interested in peace. I’m interested
in governance. I’m interested in fairness. I’m interested in human rights. I
believe we haven’t built a culture of peace in the world” (Disney, personal
communication, December 15, 2017).
Assessing the Origin of Wealth

When fundraisers work with women who have inherited their wealth, it’s
important to realize that family legacy will influence their beliefs about what
wealth means and how it is to be used. The stories of a family’s acquisition
of wealth are multilayered, changing with each generation, and interpreted
differently by each individual. It is important to assess how an individual
woman’s views of her wealth are similar to or different from her parents’ and if
there were formal or informal instructions about how to use inherited assets.
Ask open-ended questions about the family history of giving. How did
they make their wealth? How do they make decisions about philanthropy?
What did they invest in? Why did they make those choices? What was their
level of philanthropy? How much did they give? What practices of the family
philanthropy will she continue or change? How does she feel about her
inherited wealth? What does she want to accomplish with her wealth? These
questions help a fundraiser build an assessment, a history, and an inventory
of the family wealth as well as helping the donor begin to identify the links
between her patterns of giving and her family’s philanthropy.
54 L. A. Buntz
For Better or Worse, for Richer

or Poorer—Married Wealth
Women may acquire their wealth through marriage in two different life
phases, once during the marriage and a second time as a surviving spouse.
Married couples are wealthier than people in all other family structures
(Aloni, 2018). The top 10% of wealth holders are, in great proportion,
married. Even among the wealthiest households, married couples hold signif-
icantly more wealth than others (Aloni, 2018). Of the top 50 philanthropists
listed in the 2020 Chronicle of Philanthropy, thirty-five are married couples
(Rendon & Di Mento, 2020).
For a number of reasons, the wealth of married couples is often signif-
icantly greater than just double that of two individuals. In consolidating
their assets, married couples enjoy economies of scale; they share the cost of
housing, food, and educating their children. Marriage also contributes to the
concentration of wealth because marriage patterns are increasingly assortative:
wealth tends to marry wealth. Individuals in different social economic classes
sometimes “marry up” to a higher socioeconomic class, but most of us asso-
ciate with people similar in social class, income level, and interests. Thus, it
is logical that we tend to select spouses of similar education and social status.
This concentrates levels of wealth among wealth.
Women acquire wealth through marriage due to a variety of different
factors that favor the husband’s wealth accumulation: the gender-pay gap, the
age differential in spouse selection, and the fact that women more frequently
than men interrupt their careers or work history to assume childcare respon-
sibilities. A recent Merrill Lynch study found that an average woman spends
44% of her adult life out of the workforce, compared to 28% for men
(Merrill-Lynch, 2019). This means that women have fewer years to accrue
assets including social security, investments, and savings. In 2020 a full-time
female worker had a median weekly income of $891 compared to males at
$1082 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). If women marry someone
close to their own age, men have usually accumulated more assets prior to
a marriage, due to higher wages. In addition, if a woman marries a partner
older than she, he has had more time to accrue wealth.
The recent COVID pandemic has disproportionately impacted women
and their work lives. In the spring of 2020, 5.1 million American mothers of
young children stopped working for pay. Fifteen months later, as the country
was increasingly vaccinated, 1.3 million women were still out of work (Miller,
2021). Childcare responsibilities traditionally have been assumed by women
and when daycare and schools were not available, many had to make tough
choices about giving up their careers, jobs, and livelihood to care for their
young children. It will take years for women to regain what they have lost in
their careers, wages, and advancement options.
The gender wage gap, less full-time work, and careers interrupted by child-
care responsibilities have tended to leave the impression with fundraisers that
women have less access to philanthropic power than men. We forget at our
peril that later in life women tend to be the wealthy holder of the family’s
assets.
Philanthropic Decision-Making Between Couples

Assessing how couples make philanthropic decisions is important informa-
tion for fund development professionals considering that at least 70% of all
charitable giving comes from individuals or couples (Giving USA, 2020). A
common assumption is that a couple’s assets are shared equally, but research
does not support that assumption. Formal ownership of, or legal right to,
is not the same as control of wealth. Control involves making decisions
regarding how to spend it, save it, or give it away. Couples may engage in
“voluntary specialization,” where financial resources are viewed as collective,
though one person has the primary responsibility for making the types of
investment decisions most directly linked to the acquisition and control over
wealth (Chang, 2010, p. 102). Each couple determines who will have primary
responsibility over financial matters. The degree of education of each partner
is sometimes a factor and appears to be closely coupled with financial profi-
ciency, contradicting traditional gender norms in which men have historically
assumed the role (Chang, 2010, p. 105). Nearly 75% of girls versus 66% of
boys graduate from high school and women are 1.5 times more likely than
men to graduate from college, thus increasing the number of women who
may have more education than their spouses.
When women have their own earnings or wealth, they may exert more
power over the financial decisions. Women who earn more than their
husbands are more likely to influence philanthropic decisions. Paula Wasley,
in a Chronicle of Philanthropy article, reported that in a survey of 1000 adults
who give $1000 or more to charity, 80% were married and the majority
of male respondents reported that their spouse was the primary influencer
in charitable giving decisions. Women, on the other hand, reported that
many people influenced their decisions about philanthropy (Wasley, 2009).
Professor Eleanor Brown, Pomona College, has identified three types of
philanthropic decision-making among couples.
56 L. A. Buntz
1. A cooperative unitary agreement when one partner decides.

2. A joint decision that involves bargaining.
3. A separate decision made by each individual (Brown, 2005).
A recent WPI study found that more than six out of ten couples make char-
itable decisions jointly (61.5%) and that around three-fourths of the 1,000
couples surveyed agree about the amount and recipients of their giving (75.6
and 77.5% respectively) (Mesch et al., 2021).
A Fidelity Charitable study of 694 couples supports the WPI study, finding
that eight out of ten married-couple donors make decisions together and they
overwhelmingly agree on those decisions (Fidelity Charitable, 2016). Many
of the women interviewed for this book were married and most reported
making philanthropic decisions jointly with their spouse. Couples who share
the same values and belief systems use these as guidance when they make
philanthropic decisions. But deciding what resources to use in their charitable
giving is sometimes a matter of perception. While women believe that they
share equally in this decision, the Fidelity survey found that men think they
take the lead (Fidelity Charitable, 2016).
Working with Married Couples

One of the most significant errors fundraisers make when working with
married couples is excluding the wife in the philanthropic conversation.
Other examples of implicit bias are: not including her name on invitations
or letters, directing verbal questions primarily to the husband, acknowl-
edging gifts only in the husband’s name, or meeting with the husband
alone to discuss philanthropy. Unfortunately, many database systems used
by fundraisers are not designed to effectively address and acknowledge a
couple for contributions. This results in a woman feeling ignored and unac-
knowledged for her philanthropy. For example, consider a couple who were
generous and dedicated donors to United Way. Each had a successful career
and contributed financially. The wife was a fundraiser at a nonprofit and her
husband gave through his place of employment. The United Way database
frequently pulled only the husband’s name as a donor because his gift was
matched by his employer. When the publication of donors was sent out
listing only the husband’s name, the wife called United Way and voiced
her concerns. The situation was remedied, but this oversight can occur if
databases are not designed to recognize the entire family unit.
If fundraisers want to engage women donors, they must understand the

dynamics of the married couple’s philanthropic relationship and value the
woman’s input, perspective, knowledge, and role in decision-making. Asking
couples how they make decisions about philanthropy will provide insights.
Ask each member of the couple to list the causes they care about and discuss
how they would like to support these causes. Forming a close relationship
with each spouse will ensure that connections and contributions continue
even if one of the spouses passes away. Make sure every acknowledgment
includes both spouses, and honor each equally for their philanthropy.
One other aspect to working with couples is recognizing that 45–62% of
women aged 25–54 have been married a second time (Livingston, 2013).
Exploring with each person their previous history of giving, their plans for
philanthropy as a couple, and how legacy will be handled are all aspects of
ongoing challenging conversations. Recognize that previous patterns of giving
may change with subsequent marriages. Most importantly stay connected to
all of the individuals.
Working with Single Women: Widowed, Never

Married, Divorced
Almost seventy percent of women age 75 or older are widowed, divorced,
or never married (Houser, 2007). Women outnumber men 2:1 in age group
90-94 years and a ratio of 4:1 for centenarians (Statistics Times, 2020). The
likelihood of an elderly widow being a donor in your women’s philanthropy
initiative is very high.
Married couples usually own most, if not all, of their valuable property
and assets jointly. Generally, when a spouse passes away the survivor inherits a
substantial portion of the couple’s combined assets. Yet, having a will, under-
standing state and federal laws and inheritance taxes, and having a plan for
asset distribution developed prior to death are all factors that influence if
and how the woman inherits wealth from a marriage. Some women are very
knowledgeable about the couple’s wealth portfolio and others are confused
and anxious about handling the financial affairs after the passing of a spouse.
As women age, many do not make significant changes to wills or estates
developed when they were married.
Working with women who are widowed is a delicate and sensitive
endeavor. Factors that may influence changes in estate plans include the age
of the woman at the time she is widowed, whether she remarries, and her
own personal philanthropic interests. One of the first factors to determine is
58 L. A. Buntz
whether the donor wants to continue the couple’s giving pattern, or has her
own philanthropic interests to pursue. Is she interested in making small or
large changes to her giving plan? If there is a strong and trusting relationship
between the fundraiser and woman, discussions about legacy or endowment
gifts may be explored, as the survivor adapts to her new status as a single
person.
A Survivor’s Story
Terri and Art Christoffersen had been philanthropic donors, well-known
volunteers, and community leaders in Cedar Rapids, Iowa for many years.
Art had joined the team of a very profitable telecommunications company in
the 1980–1990s. His expertise as an accountant and his creative skills quickly
propelled him to the executive team and when stocks for the company soared,
the couple reaped the benefits accruing substantial resources.
Both had come from modest backgrounds. Terri grew up in a rural
community. Her original high school class had eleven students. After a two-
school consolidation, she graduated with a class of twenty-four. Her parents
farmed with other family members and volunteered in the community. She
learned a lot about giving by observing them.
They met in high school. After graduation Art worked in a factory until he
was drafted into the U.S. army in 1966. After nineteen months in Berlin, he
returned home and enrolled in a community college. Meanwhile, Terri had
been pursuing her Bachelor of Science degree in nursing at a local college.
They married after her graduation and Art continued his education while
working several jobs and benefitting from Terri’s support and encouragement.
Growing up in the Christoffersen family had been challenging for Art.
With an absent father, three younger brothers and a sister, he took on a signif-
icant role in raising his younger siblings. His understanding of philanthropy
came from the personal experience of being part of a family in need. Early
in his career at Life Investors, he chaired an annual United Way company
campaign, frequently telling his personal story to his employees and others,
encouraging them to give to charitable causes. “Many of the nonprofits I
support were ones that my family could have used during my childhood,” he
often said. His story and his unlikely rise to success always inspired Terri.
Terri’s experience as a leader and philanthropist began when she volun-
teered in numerous community organizations while raising her children.
Over a period of years she began to take on bigger roles, serving on boards and
committees, and learning from other women philanthropists and fundraisers.
Her organizational and leadership skills began to emerge. When the local
women’s homeless resource center needed to launch a major capital campaign
to build a shelter, Terri led the charge. After that she became known as one of
the best fundraisers in the community. She continued on this path, serving
as a United Way campaign chair and a member of numerous boards of direc-
tors, usually in a leadership position. She and Art gave generously to local
universities, healthcare, and nonprofits.
Unfortunately, in early 2005 at the age of fifty-eight Art was diagnosed
with cancer. He passed away within six months, cutting the couple’s life
dreams short.
Eventually, Terri had to decide how to practice her own form of philan-
thropy. Faith played a significant role in this transformation. She had learned
from Art that helping others is a privilege, one not everyone can do. Together,
they had developed and embraced a philosophy of “giving without judg-
ment;” one never knows someone else’s story of need, what happened, how
they got into their current situation, or why they need help, so give without
judgment.
Terri is a smart, organized, and thoughtful woman who wanted to carry
out the philanthropic priorities she and Art had established together. She
also wanted to be strategic in her future choices. Since Art’s passing she has
carried on a tradition of volunteering, chairing numerous nonprofit boards,
and the hospital foundation. Healthcare is a major priority, partly because
of her career as a nurse, but also because of Art’s health crisis. As she uses
her wealth to generously influence many causes, she teaches her children and
granddaughters about philanthropy.
When asked if her philanthropic priorities had changed after Art’s death,
she said, “I have to believe that the age of the surviving spouse at the death
of her husband impacts this decision. However, the passion and basic philos-
ophy that has driven our previous philanthropic decisions will not change”
(Christoffersen, personal communication, August 31, 2017). At fifty-seven,
she had a lot of life ahead of her. While she supports many of the same causes,
she admits that she is constantly exposed to new projects and her community
is changing. There may be more and different needs that result in making
different plans regarding her estate. Terri has regularly engaged her two chil-
dren and their families in making philanthropic decisions and she knows that
they will carry on the legacy established by herself and Art. Being a survivor is
not easy. Making decisions that honor your spouse’s legacy while carving out
your unique interests takes time and patience. Terri has accomplished both.
60 L. A. Buntz
Divorced and Single Women

Melinda Gates may be getting lots of attention these days as the most recent
high net worth woman who will be getting a divorce, but thousands of others
have been in similar situations with far less resources. Data highlighted in
Chapter 4 documented that single women may be more likely to give and
give higher amounts than their male counterparts (Mesch et al., 2015).
Divorce is a tipping point for many women in their relationship with
money and philanthropy. It may be the first time she is a financial entity
unto herself, a state that could be empowering or frightening. She alone can
make choices about how to use her resources. Establishing relationships with
women after a separation or divorce provides support for her, and offers her
an opportunity to build new networks or connections with other women.
The following story is an example of faulty assumptions, a set of negative
and positive experiences, and some valuable feedback for fundraisers.
Lori, is an advocate, donor, and volunteer at a women’s foundation.
During her marriage, nonprofits and fundraisers frequently asked her and her
husband to donate to many causes and events. Her husband had a substan-
tial income from his executive job; fundraisers considered them a HNW
couple. What many fundraisers did not realize is that Lori initiated 90%
of the philanthropic decisions. It had never been part of the conversations
that occurred during solicitations. After their divorce, Lori was surprised that
very few of the previous fundraisers or organizations reached out to her. In
fact, she was shocked and a bit dismayed. “They assumed I no longer had
access to any wealth and never bothered to establish a relationship with me.
I felt that my influence on where our contributions had been directed had
been significantly overlooked” (Lane, personal communication, February 19,
2020).
Several months after her divorce a friend invited Lori to attend a luncheon
at the women’s foundation. Following her attendance, the women’s foun-
dation staff reached out to her, met with her, and encouraged her to join
their board. After learning about the programs funded by the foundation,
she increased her participation, continued to be an annual donor, and even-
tually was inspired to give a legacy gift. The staff listened to her and valued
her time, talent, and treasure.
Single, unmarried, or never married women are always prospects for
women’s philanthropy initiatives. Many have substantial resources and
are accustomed to making independent choices about their philanthropy.
Connecting these women with others who have similar interests and helping
them build a network can be a mutually beneficial endeavor. Women like to
help other women and many are strong supporters of programs for women
and girls. Remember to tailor organizational materials to all audiences, not
just couples. Make a special effort to invite these donors as a group or connect
them with a mentor, colleague, or other donor. These donors are also ideal
prospects for legacy gifts.
Earned Wealth—Jacki Zehner

A 2018 cover of Forbes featured young entrepreneur Kylie Jenner with the
headline: “America’s Women Billionaires.” The article listed 60 women as
America’s most successful entrepreneurs. Twenty-four were billionaires—up
from the 18 listed a year earlier. All told, these women held $712 billion in
wealth (Robehmed, 2018).
The number of women who fall into this huge wealth category is small,
but as women become more educated, enter a fuller range of professions, and
have better career opportunities, the numbers earning their own wealth will
only grow. Earned wealth empowers women and enables them to manage
their philanthropy differently than when it is a resource acquired through
marriage or inheritance. Consider, for example, Jackie Zehner.
Well known in women’s philanthropy circles as the former Chief Engage-
ment Officer and cofounder of Women Moving Millions, Zehner has been
very public and outspoken about the need for more women to get engaged
in philanthropy. Today, she is president of the Jacquelyn and Gregory Zehner
Foundation based in Park City, Utah.
Zehner’s path to philanthropy began with her extraordinary and extremely
successful career in the finance industry. In 1996, she was the youngest
woman and first female trader to be invited into the partnership at Goldman
Sachs. Recognized as a trailblazer and next-generation role model for women,
she has transitioned from a wealth manager to full-time advocate and
philanthropist.
As a young girl growing up in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, she
watched her family help others, not with money but with time and talent.
Working as a cashier at her father’s grocery store taught her the basics of
money management and a degree from the University of British Columbia
in finance set her on a path for career success. Over the course of fourteen
years, she advanced among the ranks at Goldman Sachs to become one of the
few senior women traders on Wall Street.
In 2002, she left Goldman Sachs to devote her energy and skills full
time to the development of women’s philanthropy. Digging in and doing her
62 L. A. Buntz
own research she said, “a relatively small percentage of overall philanthropic

capital actually went specifically to focus on women and girls … despite
the fact that we are half of the population and arguably because of gender
and equality. That really catalyzed my deep, deep passion to not only acti-
vate my own capital, but really get the message out there” (Zehner, personal
communication, November 17, 2017).
Zehner’s experiences with WMM, the Women’s Funding Network, and the
Women Philanthropy Institute have given her wide perspective on the topic
of women’s philanthropy. She believes that there are more similarities than
differences between general philanthropy and gender-based philanthropy, but
recognizes that women want to bring their whole selves to the table, not just
write a check. They want to bring their voice, and influence, and networks
to bear as well as their skills and talents.
As a woman who has earned her own money, Zehner finally had the
means to be philanthropically focused. She formed a family foundation,
supports and publicizes research about women’s philanthropy on her website,
has served on boards of organizations that support women, and acted as a
spokesperson for women’s philanthropy. In addition to supporting nonprofits
that she cares about, she believes she can be a catalyst for other women to get
involved.
She has had many choices about what to support with her wealth. Her
experiences as a minority in her profession and acknowledgment of the
gender imbalance in the workplace and in philanthropy all prompted her
to become a vocal advocate for women’s philanthropy. She asks others
constantly, “Why aren’t more women engaged? Why don’t more women care?
Why aren’t more men engaged and caring about human rights, women’s
rights? Last time I checked all men had mothers, grandmothers, perhaps
daughters.” Since her retirement from WMM in 2018 Zehner has become
very focused on gender-impact investing and likes to borrow this quote from
her friend Ruth Harnish, “Finance is the new frontier of feminism” (Zehner,
personal communication, November 17, 2017). The best place to start is to
earn your own money, learn about your finances, and help support other
women who starting businesses.
Assessing Women as Prospects

Prospecting is a standard practice in fund development programs and usually
includes collecting several types of information in three primary categories:
wealth capacity, giving history, and connection to or interest in an organi-

zation or cause. Usually, prospecting is done with the goal of finding new
donors or enhancing the probability of major gifts.
Discovering wealth capacity and history of giving is like going on a scav-
enger hunt. If the woman is a current donor, your organizational database
is the logical place to begin. Documenting her pattern of giving includes
amounts given and the causes she supports, her lifetime giving, and the types
of gifts she prefers: annual, projects, or legacy. If she is not a current donor
here are a few examples of resources a fundraiser can use to collect relevant
information on donor prospects:
1. Review donor lists from other nonprofit organizations.

2. Read annual reports or publications from capital campaigns, nonprofits
or foundations, seeking who the donors are and at what level they are
giving.
3. Attend social functions to see the attendees—are your current donors or
prospects there?
4. Watch the live auctions at fundraisers, noting the sponsoring organiza-
tions, families, companies, and who is bidding.
5. Read the lists of boards of directors of nonprofit and for-profit organiza-
tions.
6. Find out where your donor lives and if she is engaged with local schools
or civic organizations.
7. Ask colleagues of the potential donor to share any insights into her
wealth capacity or interests.
8. Research real estate transfers, news articles, business briefs, and the
obituaries.
9. Google political donations, stock sales, and news stories about the
prospect.
10. Use your board of directors, trustees or other committee members to
help you brainstorm potential women prospects.
11. Review the list of members of civic organizations or neighborhood
associations.
12. Research a prospect’s connection to companies.
13. Purchase a wealth scan or data mining package to assess your current
donors and prospects.
14. Explore the woman donor’s history and life circumstances with her
colleagues or acquaintances.
64 L. A. Buntz
These sources, combined with conversations with your prospect about how
she acquired her wealth and how she uses it, begin to create a pattern and
picture of her philanthropy. When donors have capacity, the next critical
question is does she have a connection and interest?
Interest is demonstrated by involvement with an organization or cause.
The type of involvement and frequency may vary over a period of time from
a long-time engagement to none at all. Discovering connection to or interest
in an organization or cause can be assessed by finding the answers to these
questions:
1. Is a donor serving on boards or volunteering at events?

2. How often and in what capacity?
3. Is she active or passive, a leader or an attendee?
4. Is she interested in one cause or many?
5. Why is she interested? What is her connection to the cause?
6. Does she steadily increase her involvement?
7. Is it consistent or sporadic?
8. Does she have friends within the organization or as other volunteers?
9. Does she have a relationship with any of the staff?
10. Has she visited your website, how often?
11. Is she connected on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, or other social
media?
12. Has she signed up for your newsletter?
13. Has she requested information about your organization?
Leslie Crutchfield, John Kania, and Mark Kramer in their well-known

book, Do More Than Give discuss the two premises of catalytic philanthropy.
The first and the one most relevant to donor assessment is, “Donors have
something valuable to contribute beyond their money” (Crutchfield et al.,
2011, p. 4). They go on to discuss how donors can use social position, influ-
ence, and power to create change and solve problems. In addition to serving
on boards and committees, they act as catalysts for social change by lever-
aging the power of the private, nonprofit, and public sectors. This is not new
information for a fundraiser, but often professionals don’t spend enough time
developing a plan for how to increase the engagement of donors on all levels.
Encouraging prospective women donors to give advice, offer suggestions,
serve on a committee, or help staff build a network with other donors or orga-
nizations are all ways of leveraging a donor’s capacity without ever mentioning
money. Women have unique skills they bring to an organization. They are
great networkers and relationship experts, they focus on collaboration and
consensus building, and are usually better than men at coaching, mentoring,
and teamwork. Asking them to use these skills as a volunteer fosters and
deepens engagement.
Women traditionally have donated more of their time than men to
community service and single women volunteer almost twice as many hours
as men (Mesch et al., 2006). This means that women donors more often than
men may have had the opportunity to serve on a committee, work on project,
attend an event, or be a board member. Unfortunately, many nonprofits seek
board members and volunteers who hold influential positions in the commu-
nity. Given there are fewer women than men in these positions it is essential
that a fundraiser look for women in nontraditional roles and spaces and ask
them to serve and promote them into leadership roles.
A fundraiser would rarely ask a woman to donate to a cause without any
previous connection to her or without having invited her to learn about
the organization’s mission. Rating the level of donor interest is based on
frequency and type of engagement. A popular alignment tool is called the
LAI, the Linkage, Ability, and Interest Inventory (Cannon, 2017). Based on
similar data points as listed previously, the fundraising team researches how
the prospect is Linked to your organization through friends or colleagues, as
a former donor or committee member. Ability relates to the capacity to give
a gift or what resources the donor has available for giving. Interest rates an
individual’s involvement in community issues, her passions, or connections
to nonprofits. Donors are assigned points in each of these areas, the higher
number indicating a greater level or frequency of linkage, higher capacity to
give, etc.
Matrices may also be developed that assess additional criteria including
job title, community networks, or connections to a specific industry. Jennifer
Filla, President of Aspire Research Group, suggests that fundraisers try to
limit the number of criteria to five or fewer (Filla, 2020). The higher rating
you give each of these factors, the higher the probability that the donor
prospect will be a good candidate for a philanthropic gift. As prospects are
identified, fundraising staff can prioritize their work and contacts, focusing
on the best prospects first. Here is an example (Table 5.1).
Finally, remember every fundraising tool is only as good as the people who
use it. Donors are not widgets or tools, they are unique people. Employ some
judgment, think about how intimately you know this donor, and ultimately
what kind of connection and gift she might be interested in. Use your mind
to gather the data and your heart to guide your approach.
66
Table 5.1 Rubric for Linkage, Ability and Interest

Fair/Average
Poor prospect Marginal prospect prospect Good prospect Ideal prospect
Linkage 0 1 2 3 4 Score
Service No history of Volunteers Volunteers Desires to serve Steadily increasing
volunteering or sporadically consistently on a board or her involvement.
L. A. Buntz
serving committee Serves on board,

committees
Connections to Knows no one Is friends with a Is active through Is connected to Is closely connected
cause or affiliated with volunteer and social media with someone within to staff,
organization cause or within familiar with the cause and the organization volunteers;
the organization organization knows staff, and understands requests and
volunteers the cause reads information
Ability
Time Unable to give Expresses interest Volunteers for the Offers time to a Offers suggestions
time due to in giving time, organization and cause or org, for ways to be
other but rarely follows causes committed to involved. Gives
commitments through occasionally serving. Brings a time frequently
skill set
Money Has limited Gives small Donates regularly Gives generously HNW, looking for
resources and is amounts when in small/moderate to related useful ways to
not a donor asked amounts to causes/orgs. Has use it. Gives at a
causes/org. Has substantial major gift/legacy
modest resources resources level
Fair/Average
Poor prospect Marginal prospect prospect Good prospect Ideal prospect
Interest
Commitment Neither donates Writes checks but Regularly attends Regularly attends Leads events and
nor attends rarely attends events, but is not events and plays an active
events events actively involved engages, role in engaging
participates others to attend
Connection to Has no Is theoretically Knows someone Has been directly Has a passion and
cause/issue connection(s) interested but affected by the affected by the personal interest
not personally cause or issue cause or issue in the causes/org
connected
Total:
5 Assessing Your Donors
67
68 L. A. Buntz
Bibliography
Aloni, E. (2018). The martial wealth gap. Washington Law Review, 93(1), 16–26.
Blouin, B. (1987). For love and/or money: The impact of inherited wealth on
relationships. University Microfilms.
Brown, E. (2005). Married couples’ charitable giving: Who and why. New Directions
for Philanthropic Fundraising, 50, 69–80.
Callahan, D. (2017). The givers. Alfred Knopf.
Cannon, J. (2017, October 20). Determining linkage, ability and interest (LAI)
via CPD. Retrieved January 26, 2020, from http://medium.com/@MaxMedia
Group/determining-linkage-ability-and-interest-lai-via-cpd-34599257d5c2
Chang, M. L. (2010). Shortchanged . Oxford University Press.
Crutchfield, L., Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Do more than give. Jossey-Bass.
Filla, J. (2020, June 25). Why and how to cultivate women donors. Chronicle of
Philanthropy, Webinar.
Fidelity Charitable. (2016). How couples give: Fidelity charitable survey shows giving
brings couples together, highlights importance of discussing values. Boston, MA.
Giving USA Foundation. (2020). Giving USA: 2020—The annual report on philan-
thropy for the year 2019.
Gunter, M. (2019). Good intentions. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved June
21, 2020, updated information from http://givingpledge.org
Hirsch, A. (2011). Freedom of Testation/Freedom of Contract, 95 MINN. L. REV.
2180, 2182 n.7 (“Economic studies have found that a large fraction [possibly in
the range of eighty percent] of household wealth in the United States traces to
gifts and inheritances, as opposed to participation in the labor economy”).
Houser, A. N. (2007). Women and long-term care. Retrieved December 26,
2021, from https://www.aarp.org/home-garden/livable-communities/info-2007/
fs77r_ltc.html
Livingston, G. (2013). Chapter 2: The demographics of remarriage. Pew Research
Center. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/
2014/11/14/chapter-2-the-demographics-of-remarriage
Merrill-Lynch. (2019). Women and financial wellness: Beyond the bottom line. A
Merrill Lynch study conducted in partnership with Age Wave. Bank of America
Corporation.
Mesch, D., Osili, U., Pactor, A., Ackerman, J., Bergdoll, J., Kalugyer, A. D.,
Scholl, J., Ware, A., Hyatte, C., Dale, E., Hawash, R., & Yang, Y. (2015). Do
women give more? Findings on three unique data sets on charitable giving. Women’s
Mesch, D. J., Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., & Denton, B. (2006). The effects of
race, gender and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35 (4), 565–587.
Mesch, D., Osili, U., Ackerman, J., Bergdoll, J., Skidmore, T., & Sager, J. (2021).
Women give 2021: How households make giving decisions. Women’s Philanthropy
Institute.
Miller, C. C. (2021, May 23). What women lost. The New York Times. Retrieved
April 22, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/17/upshot/
women-workforce-employment-covid.html
Rendon, J., & Di Mento, M. (2020, February). Billion-Dollar giving streak.
Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Robehmed, N. (2018, August 31). Money for nothing …and the clicks for free.
Forbes, 201(6), 67–72.
Ryan, C. (2005). From cradle to grave: Challenges and opportunities of inherited
wealth. In E. Clift (Ed.), Women, philanthropy, and social change: Visions for a just
society (1st ed., pp. 183–200). Tufts University Press.
Statistics Times. (2020). Retrieved December 23, 2021, from https://statisticstimes.
com/demographics/country/us-sex-ratio.php
RBC Wealth Management. (2018). The new face of wealth and legacy: How
women are redefining wealth, giving, and legacy planning. Retrieved February
14, 2020, from https://www.rbcwealthmanagement.com/en-us/insights/the-new-
face-of-wealth-and-legacy-how-women-are-redefining-wealth-giving-and-legacy-
planning
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Table 39: Median weekly earnings of full-time
wage and salary workers by detailed occupations and sex (Data Set). Labor Force
Statistics from the Current Population Survey.
Wasley, P. (2009, May 19). Women take the lead in couples’ charitable giving
decisions. Chronicle of Philanthropy.
6
Assessment: Is Your Organization Ready
for a Women’s Philanthropy Initiative?
United Way Worldwide is the largest privately funded nonprofit organization,

consisting of nearly 1,800 autonomous charities spanning forty countries on
six continents and serving 48 million people annually. Founded by a woman,
Frances Wisebart Jacobs, a priest, two ministers, and a rabbi in 1887 in
Denver, Colorado, the vision for the organization was to collect funds for
local charities, coordinate relief services, distribute grants, promote collab-
oration, and respond to changing community needs in the areas of health,
education, human services, and economic stability (United Way, 2021). The
federated charity model has members or chapters that operate as individual
nonprofits—the local United Way organization in your community. The
model allows 7.7 million donors to give a charitable contribution through
a payroll deduction or directly to any United Way. These donations are
combined with contributions from 45,000 corporate partners and distributed
to multiple nonprofits. Through coordinated fundraising the organization has
been able to distribute billions of dollars to local communities.
Listed as America’s #1 Favorite Charity in the 2019 Chronicle of Philan-
thropy list (Stiffman & Haynes, 2019), this 133-year-old fundraising giant
continually reinvents itself to address the changing tides of donors’ inter-
ests, new technologies, and competition from more than 1.5 million other
nonprofits in the U.S. One of these reinventions occurred twenty years
ago when organizational leadership recognized how many women were in
their donor base and developed an affinity group model originally called the
Women’s Leadership Council. Affinity groups are subsets of donors aligned

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_6
72 L. A. Buntz
by demographic factor, contribution level, or professional affiliation. Many

United Way chapters developed women’s affinity groups during this time,
but did not truly recognize their potential.
In 2014, the United Way of Greater Los Angeles (UWGLA) found a
startling statistic in data from United Way Worldwide. Compared to the prior
decade, fundraising across the federated charity was mostly flat, but donations
via women’s affinity groups had increased more than 170% (O’Neil, 2016).
A staff was assigned to develop a five-year plan for the Women’s Leadership
Council. Within two years, the UWGLA held an event for 1,000 Women’s
Leadership Council attendees and raised $600,000.
Today, the Women’s Leadership Councils within United Way World-
wide have rebranded as Women United . These affinity groups have more
than 70,000 members in 165 communities across six countries. Since 2002,
Women United has raised $2 billion. It remains one of the most successful
fundraising sectors within the United Way system.
Integrating a women’s philanthropy initiative into the existing network
of annual campaigns required commitment to empowering women, and a
concentrated effort on the part of leadership. Women were connected to
each other through professional and social groups. They selected causes they
wanted to support, and worked in collaboration with United Way staff
to determine how much each woman would contribute. Although Women
United operates slightly differently in each United Way chapter, the cumula-
tive success of the initiative is stunning. It has added new donors, revenue and
volunteers, and helped to create solutions to many community-based prob-
lems including reducing teen pregnancy in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, increasing
women’s economic stability in San Francisco, California, and improving chil-
dren’s early literacy rates in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Women United affinity
groups have grown more in membership and contributions than any other
affinity group within the United Way system.
Michelle Branch, an attorney in San Francisco and current volunteer chair
of Women United Global Leadership Council, shared these thoughts about
its success.
The Women United brand brought many diverse women together under one
umbrella. It has been successful because women want to be part of something
bigger. There is an advantage to being part of a large network. You can share
knowledge, expertise, and use data to make informed decisions. United Way
has moved to an impact model, one that recognizes the power of women as
community leaders who can create policy change. I’m proud of my work with
United Way Worldwide to develop and highlight pathways that women can use
to advocate to their local, state, and federal elected officials. At my local United
6 Assessment: Is Your Organization Ready for a Women’s … 73
Way Bay Area, I’ve been focused on reducing income inequality, increasing the
affordable housing supply, and providing healthcare for all (Branch, personal
communication, March 5, 2020).
Several other national nonprofit organizations have launched successful

women’s philanthropy initiatives, including the American Cancer Society,
American Heart Association, and the American Red Cross. Symbolism,
color schemes, and effective media campaigns were key elements when the
American Cancer Society and Susan B. Komen Foundation wanted to raise
awareness about breast cancer in 1982. Charlotte Haley, a breast cancer
survivor, originated the concept of a peach colored cancer awareness ribbon
and started to raise funds through a grassroots campaign. In 1992, Alexandra
Penny, editor in chief of Self magazine, wanted to collaborate with Haley to
further promote the cause, but Haley rejected her offer as being too commer-
cial (Fernandez, 1998). In an effort to put the Breast Cancer Awareness
Month issue of the magazine over the top, Penny changed the color to pink
and enlisted cosmetics companies to distribute them to New York City stores.
The pink ribbon was born. Awareness about breast cancer grew and so did
financial support for breast cancer research. Community walks and events
annually educate thousands of women about the disease, encouraging them
to take preventive action and seek treatment. The number of women donors
has increased significantly.
In 2004, the American Heart Association (AHA) recognized that nearly
half-a-million women suffered annually from cardiovascular disease and
strokes. A special initiative was created to reach women donors with the dual
goal of education and financial support for research. The Go Red for Women
movement symbolized by a red dress became an instant hit. Luncheons
and fundraising events educate women, connect members who have expe-
rienced heart disease, and build networks of supporters or family members of
survivors. The American Heart Association (2021) added Men Go Red in the
past several years to engage male donors. Today, Go Red for Women is active in
most major American cities and in 50 countries. Macy’s Department Store,
the primary sponsor, has raised more than $69 million to fund research and
build awareness.
The American Red Cross started its own women’s giving efforts in 2006.
The Tiffany Circle requires each woman to give an annual $10,000 donation
to support Red Cross local priorities. The Circle is named after the Louis
Comfort Tiffany stained-glass windows at the charity’s national headquar-
ters in Washington, DC. The windows were commissioned by women on
both sides of the Mason-Dixon line as an act of reconciliation after the Civil
74 L. A. Buntz
War. By 2016, Tiffany Circle membership had climbed to 800 with donations
totaling $7.7 million (O’Neill, 2016).
These are a few examples of how large-scale national nonprofits have
integrated specific women’s philanthropy initiatives into their pre-existing
fundraising models. The secret to these successes is understanding how
women practice philanthropy, dedicating time and resources to the effort, and
carving out specific strategies and programs that engage, excite, and inspire
women donors. They treat women as unique and special donors by addressing
their needs and interests.
Incorporating women’s philanthropy into smaller nonprofits may be more
challenging. With limited staff, communications, and technology resources,
smaller nonprofits need to scale their programs to fit within their orga-
nizational structures. But, developing a program is not impossible. Any
organization, regardless of size, can build a women’s philanthropy initiative.
Women’s Philanthropy—Unique and Integrated

Every organization that engages in fundraising currently works with women
donors, even if they are not defined as a separate and unique subset of your
philanthropic base. But, prior to the development of a women’s philanthropy
initiative, organizational staff need to think about women donors as both
wholly integrated into organizational structures and systems and unique. It’s
a situation of and/both.
Using Systems Theory to understand and assess your organization’s readi-
ness to develop a women’s initiative is a good place to start. Systems Theory,
originally developed by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the 1940s has
been used as a model to understand science, business, medicine, environ-
ments, and the sociological study of organizations. It proposes that rather
than reducing an entity to its parts or elements, focus should be on the
arrangement and relations between the parts (Heylighen & Josley, 1992).
One easy way to understand Systems Theory is to think about your body as
a system. None of the systems within your body (nervous, digestive, cogni-
tive) can function independently; each part is connected in some way to the
other systems. Just like our bodies, organizations are complex systems. What
happens in one part of the system affects other parts. It is all interconnected
and interacting constantly. Thus, in an organization, no basic function,
department or program exists independently of any other (Heylighen &
Josley, 1992).
When staff think about beginning a women’s philanthropy initiative,

remember that integrating a new program for women donors or modifying
the operations within an existing fund development department to incorpo-
rate a women’s initiative will impact the other parts of the organization in
varying degrees. Consider the following example:
When Dr. Sally Mason was appointed President of the University of
Iowa (UI) in 2007, she brought with her a history of engaging women
in philanthropy. Prior to coming to UI, Mason had served as Provost at
Purdue University and had a distinguished career as a scientist, educator, and
administrator. During her tenure at Purdue, Mason realized that many of
the women students and alumnae felt very isolated in the male-dominated
professions of science and biology. She had experienced this herself. Knowing
that there were great alumnae who had the potential to give, but weren’t
being asked, she partnered with the university foundation staff and helped
Purdue complete a successful $1.7 billion campaign. Today at Purdue, there
are special programs designed for women donors, including the Science for
Women Purdue Giving Circle.
At the University of Iowa, Mason was delighted to find a seasoned
fundraising professional leading the foundation, Lynette Marshall. In an
effort to reach out to women donors, she suggested to Marshall that they
invite 8–10 women donors to a weekend retreat. During the retreat the
women discussed issues they cared about, their philanthropic journeys, and
how they could become engaged both as volunteers and funders. Women
were ready to talk and Marshall and Mason were ready to listen., “We talked
about the responsibility of stepping up and being at the table as profession-
als” (Mason, personal communication, February 17, 2020). Mason recalls the
friendly conversations leading to creative ideas about women funding schol-
arships or other special projects at the university. After President Mason left
the university, the women’s retreats were discontinued and Marshall pursued
other strategies to engage women donors.
From a systems perspective, the UI and Purdue experiences reflect different
strategies. At Purdue there wasn’t a formal strategy of working with women
donors and Mason capitalized on the opportunity to lead an initiative as
an alumna, scientist, and administrator. She knew the women students and
alumnae needed an advocate and convinced the foundation staff to integrate
the women’s philanthropy initiative into their existing systems. By targeting
women in science, a specific subset of donors could be nurtured. She helped
women align with a cause and she found an advocate within the foundation
to lead the effort and support its continuance.
76 L. A. Buntz
At UI there was a strong foundation of working with women donors

prior to Mason’s arrival. There was an existing advocate for women through
Marshall’s role as Foundation President and there was not a specific subset
of women donors to align with a cause. Mason’s interest in listening to
women’s stories prompted ideas and new partnerships, but not the need for
a new initiative. Marshall’s decision to strengthen the current system and
work within it rather than to introduce another initiative that would need
tending and leadership made the most strategic sense (Marshall, personal
communication, February 14, 2018).
These experiences demonstrate how different approaches and thoughtful
planning are all necessary as organizations consider creating women’s philan-
thropy initiatives. In Women’s Philanthropy on Campus, the Women’s Philan-
thropy Institute found that separate niche programs designed specifically for
women donors, but not integrated into the organizational fund development
plan and organizational systems, fail for a variety of reasons:
• A mid-level manager (most often a woman) creates the initiative and the
institution marginalizes it.
• When the mid-level manager leaves, the institutional knowledge about the
program leaves with her.
• The institution fails to invest long-term in the human and financial capital
needed to build the program.
• The program is maintained in isolation and not integrated into the total
development strategy.
• Development staff see the women’s philanthropy initiative as competition
to ongoing efforts, such as annual fundraising or alumni giving (Mesch &
Pactor, 2009).
So, how does an organization determine if a women’s philanthropy initia-

tive is the right fit for their organization? The first step is to conduct an
organizational assessment. This process helps staff examine the resources
and challenges that exist within their current system, learn about the issues
that impact women’s philanthropy, engage stakeholders, and outline possible
program options.
The Elements of an Assessment

The following graphic illustrates the essential ingredients in an assessment:
what needs to be assessed, by whom, your role as a fundraiser, and a reminder
that women donors are at the center of the work (Fig. 6.1).
Assessments are instruments used to inform, educate, enlighten, challenge,
and inspire organizational staff. Based on the information collected, deci-
sions can be made based on facts and feedback; actions can be contemplated
and implemented. Clearly identifying the purpose and goals of the assess-
ment helps structure the work and determines the depth and breadth of the
assessment process.
There are three primary elements to an assessment:
• What to Ask? What information is needed and why is it important?

• Who to Ask? Who should be involved in the process?
• How to Ask? How will information be obtained?
Who To
Ask
Fundraiser Women What To
Donors
Evaluation Ask
How To
Ask
Fig. 6.1 The organizational assessment

78 L. A. Buntz
What to Ask? Vision, Values, Mission, Culture

Start with the end in mind. Visions are aspirational; a future state built on
the current successes and strengths of the organization. What does the organi-
zation envision as a result of a women’s philanthropy initiative? Think about
this difficult question throughout the assessment process, returning to it often
as information is gathered, feedback provided, and the vision refined.
Vision: Here Is a List of Questions to Consider
1. What is the vision for your organization?

2. What is the vision for the women’s philanthropy initiative?
3. Why, specifically does the organization wish to develop one?
4. Are there compelling reasons to do so; what are they?
5. Does the vision for a women’s philanthropy initiative fit within the
organizational vision?
6. Describe how they align with each other.
7. Would they be in conflict or competition with each other?
8. Does the organizational leadership support developing an initiative?
Values
As participants ponder these questions, they can dream, hope, be creative,

and imagine a future state in which women’s philanthropic power is fully real-
ized within their organization or community. And, naturally, participants will
want their work to last. In their best-selling book, Built to Last, Collins and
Porras studied visionary companies observing that organizations/companies
last specifically because they have clearly articulated values (Collins & Porras,
1994).
All organizations have values, even if they are not written or articulated.
Ask a staff member for an organizational value and they will usually describe
several found in most organizational handbooks: respect, honesty, innova-
tion, excellence, and/or teamwork. Now, ask yourself, what values would be
consistent with a women’s philanthropy initiative? Gender equity, diversity,
cultural awareness or sensitivity, and social impact are a few that may come
to mind. Engage staff in a discussion about the interactions they have had
with women donors, both positive and negative. What did they learn? What
could be improved?
At times our personal and professional values are so embedded in our lives
that it is difficult to verbally describe them, but behaviorally they are explicit;
do staff treat women donors differently from men? If so, how?
Mission Statement
Among “What-to-ask” questions are those re-examining your organization’s

mission statement. A good mission statement describes both what your orga-
nization is here to do, and how it does its work. Most mission statements
are vague; few truly articulate the true nature of the work of an organization.
Write a mission statement for a women’s philanthropy initiative. Then, ask,
does it fit within the organization’s mission? Why or why not? Here are a
few good examples of mission statements from organizations that work with
women donors.
We connect with changemakers across sectors to spark powerful collaborations

and build strong partnerships. We drive exponential change, not just incre-
mental impact, to accelerate progress toward a gender equal world. (Women
Moving Millions, 2021)
The Women’s Philanthropy Institute increases understanding of women’s
philanthropy through rigorous research and education-interpreting and sharing
our insights broadly to improve philanthropy. (Women’s Philanthropy Insti-
tute, 2021)
To encourage philanthropy, leadership and mentoring of the next genera-

tion, Women and Philanthropy at UCLA seeks to:
• Engage and educate women philanthropists through programmatic activi-

ties that highlight the diversity of achievement at UCLA.
• Broaden and deepen the base of financial support by women at UCLA.
• Cultivate and mentor women as philanthropists and leaders and provide
them with a personal connection to the University and the tools to be
successful.
• Identify and support programs at UCLA that reflect the varied interests of
women.
• Advocate on behalf of women’s leadership across the campus on boards,
committees and the UCLA Foundation.
• Embrace a Culture of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access that encour-
ages, supports and advocates for the diverse voices of our members and
builds pathways to philanthropy for women from all backgrounds (UCLA,
Women and Philanthropy, 2021).
80 L. A. Buntz
Culture
Edgar Schein the author of Organizational Culture and Leadership, describes

culture as “a pattern of basic assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed
by a given group as it learns to cope with problems of external adaptation and
internal integration.” There are three different levels that can be examined in
relation to organizational culture: level 1, artifacts; level 2, espoused values;
level 3, underlying assumptions (Schein 2004). Level 3 is where the power of
organizational culture can be found. What is your organization’s culture? The
best way to answer this question, is to ask what is the organization’s person-
ality? Is it structured or innovative, creative or rule bound, collaborative or
independent?
Within organizations that have philanthropy as a key part of their mission,
a culture of philanthropy should be embedded in the whole organization.
However, fundraising is often viewed as the task that belongs only to the
fundraising staff. Yet, when there is a culture of philanthropy within the orga-
nization, everyone in the organization thinks about philanthropy and how
they can help engage donors in their mission.
Does your organization have a culture of embracing diversity or of gender
sensitivity? Who is approached for contributions and why are these donors
chosen? Is there a culture of including women in all aspects of the organiza-
tion including serving on the board, committees, leading campaigns, being
featured in publications or given awards?
A prominent woman philanthropist in the Midwest described her expe-
riences with some fundraisers. “They don’t seek me out. People go to my
husband first, and if he says no, they come to me thinking, she’s an easy
touch. It’s not true. I want to see the results of the money: how is it spent,
how much goes to administration and how much to the participants?” This
couple has significant resources and their wealth is the result of the husband’s
business. What fundraisers should know is that the wife is an equal partner
in their philanthropic decision-making and she is led as much by her head
as her heart. Naïve and inaccurate assessments of her role hindered some
organizations’ abilities to form a relationship and obtain a gift.
Think about how your staff talk about, think about, and recognize women
donors. What assumptions underlie the practices that have been used previ-
ously to work with women donors? How does the staff determine which
donors to lead the board, special projects, or programs? It’s difficult to assess
all the aspects of an organization’s culture, but these are a few questions that
can prompt robust discussion.
Finally, it is helpful to test your reality with objective outside observers.

Ask donors and volunteers who are not in your organization for feedback
about your work. Then, collect data that will help support or negate staff
assumptions. These practices help bring a more realistic assessment to the
philanthropic culture within the organization.
Martha Taylor, former Vice President at the University of Wisconsin Foun-
dation, explains that when she was developing the foundation’s fundraising
program it was perceived that alumni would be the main contributors
and a large percentage of the alumni body was women. But approaching
women donors was not part of the Foundation’s culture. “There were under-
lying assumptions that women would not give large gifts and deferred to
their husbands in decisions” (Taylor, personal communication, March 24,
2020). Through her long-standing work with women donors she knew these
assumptions were faulty. She embarked on a campaign to raise money to help
fund the School of Human Ecology by asking women donors each to give a
$100,000 contribution. One hundred women responded. Today, a beautiful
stained-glass wall showcases those 100 women—a testament to the power of
women and their giving. The School of Human Ecology is the first building
on the campus named in honor of a woman philanthropist, Nancy Johnson
Nicholas, a 1955 graduate of the school.
Who to Ask—Key Stakeholders

Stakeholders are those individuals and groups who have a vested interest in
the organization, participate in its operations or will be impacted by it. Four
core groups should be asked for feedback: organizational staff, volunteers,
community partners, and donors.
1. Organizational staff includes key leadership, fundraising staff, support,

and communications experts. Create integrated groups by mixing disci-
plines, genders, ages and ethnicities, if possible, allowing staff to hear the
perceptions, visions, and concerns about developing a women’s philan-
thropy initiative from others within the organization.
2. Board members and key volunteers need to provide input about their
experiences and perceptions of the organization’s current work with
donors. These individuals can reflect on the organization’s strengths, chal-
lenges, and proven or unproven capacity and ability to integrate new
programs.
82 L. A. Buntz
3. Community stakeholders or critical partners such as funding partners,

foundations, and programs within the community that serve women
provide perspectives from the outside looking in.
4. Most importantly, you need to hear from current women contributors to
your organization or to other organizations within your community.
A designated leader within the organization can assemble these groups, but
having an outside facilitator lead the process and structure the discussions can
be very helpful in providing objective perceptions and analysis. Meeting with
each of these groups separately allows the leader or facilitator to ask questions
that are the most meaningful to the members.
How to Ask? Getting the Information You Need

Think about creating multiple ways for stakeholders to provide information
about their experiences, visions, concerns, and support. The most successful
options are focus groups, personal interviews, surveys, questionnaires, and
social media campaigns. The choice of methods is determined by the amount
of resources available. Focus groups and personal interviews will provide the
most robust information, but take a considerable amount of time and can
only reach a limited number of people. Questionnaires, surveys, or social
media inquiries will reach a broader range of participants, but the data is
limited to written responses. Consider engaging the services of an experi-
enced researcher to assist in developing these instruments and evaluating the
collected data.
Database and Technology Analysis
Subjective information gathered through verbal feedback, opinions, percep-

tions, and discussions is truly valuable in helping to develop awareness among
staff about an organization’s previous engagement and work with women as
well as identifying whether there is genuine interest in pursuing a women’s
philanthropy initiative. The next step is to gather objective information
through a data analysis that helps develop a baseline of the organization’s
work with donors, and assess its technological capacity. Here are some data
points that are essential to gather.
1. How many women donors are in the pool of the organization’s donors?
2. What is their history and level of contributions?
3. How many new women donors join your organization each year?
4. How are they recruited?
5. Do they give as an individual or a couple?
6. How do you recognize women in your data system?
7. If women donors have left your organization, do you know why?
8. What name and salutation are used for mailings? (Remember, some data
bases used for fundraising do not recognize the spouse, or address the
couple as the donor, rather than individuals).
9. What causes do women support?
10. How do they like to get information?
11. Do you have a wealth scan for women donors? What does it tell you?
12. How many contacts do you have with women donors? What type?
13. Who among the staff has the best connections to women donors or
women’s networks?
14. Does your database have the ability to integrate and track information
for a women’s initiative?
Having database experts help in this part of the assessment process is crit-
ical. Once the information is collected, it should offer some insights into
the organization’s current and future pool of women donors. What does the
information tell you about your work with women donors?
Communication Analysis
Another aspect of an organizational assessment is a communication and

marketing analysis. This is the public face of the organization. It’s how infor-
mation is communicated to the general public as well as to donors, clients,
and customers. What stories do your communication materials tell about
the organization’s work, especially with women? One method of accom-
plishing this is to have individuals from outside your organization look at
your publication materials, website, social media, and any other form of
public communication. Ask them to assess the visual materials answering the
following questions:
1. How are women recognized in your communications materials?

2. Are they featured as donors? Volunteers? Committee members? Chairs or
leaders of campaigns or community projects? Are they given awards?
3. Are they featured as part of a couple, or as individuals? Is the representa-
tion accurate?
84 L. A. Buntz
4. What faces do you see when you look at the website, brochure(s), or social
media?
5. Are women of diverse backgrounds featured?
6. Are women spokespeople for the organization as often as are men?
7. Are women encouraged to be donors? If so, how?
Actually counting the number of times women are recognized or featured

compared to all donors or customers may provide a perspective of their
importance in your organizational story. There is no standard benchmark to
achieve, but the exercise itself may be enlightening as the staff review commu-
nication materials and begin to analyze how choices have been made in the
past, and what could change in the future as they think about the universe of
women donors.
Human Resources
Philanthropy is built on relationships. Building a women’s philanthropy

initiative will depend on several key human resources—organizational leader-
ship and trained fundraising staff. It is critical that organizational leadership
fully support and embrace these initiatives through verbal and financial
commitments and delegated staff. Fundraisers have to be willing to engage
in training and to re-educate themselves about working with women donors,
adjusting their traditional strategies, listening to women donors, and adding
new tools to their array of fundraising techniques. Other staff who will be
interacting with women donors will need additional training about how to
work with a diverse range of donors while being sensitive to their varying
styles of practicing philanthropy. Who on your staff has the best relationship
with women donors? Why does that person relate well to women? Do your
organizational policies and practices reflect a diversity, inclusion, and equity
lens?
Questions for Community Stakeholders

Assessing the organization’s role in the philanthropic community helps to
determine if the development of a women’s philanthropy initiative is the
right decision. After assembling community partners, begin by asking if
other organizations have programs designed specifically for women donors.
Providing some data on the potential of women’s financial capacity and
research that supports why this topic is important can be enlightening. How
would community leaders or other organizations react if a women’s philan-

thropy initiative were developed? Does the community environment support
this type of work? Is there a primary funder/sponsor that would be interested
in collaborating, or a foundation that could support your work with women?
What organizations within your community are doing similar work? Is there
an existing initiative that could be used as a model?
Gathering this information will help the organization determine if this is a
niche that needs to be filled or is duplicative. Perhaps it would open the door
for new partnerships. When United Ways embarked on developing Women
United , some chapters partnered with local women’s foundations or commu-
nity foundations. Women’s foundations had data about the needs of women
in the community that could be used to encourage women donors to give to
many different nonprofits. Smaller United Ways with limited administrative
capacity used community foundations as the administrative agent for their
Women’s United programs. Although there is always an element of compe-
tition for donors, community conversations are usually enlightening, and
open the door to new partnerships while relaying the importance of women’s
philanthropy.
Questions for Women Donors/Volunteers

Asking women to share their personal philanthropic experiences is essential
and can be extremely insightful as women’s philanthropic initiatives are devel-
oped. One of the questions used while interviewing women philanthropists
for this book was, “Describe your best and worst philanthropic experience.”
Fortunately, the majority of donors had positive memorable experiences.
Negative experiences focused on the donor’s embarrassment when her contri-
butions were made public without her consent, occasions when donors felt
pressured to give, or were placed in competition with other women. How
do you like to be recognized? What types of information about the orga-
nization or cause do you want to receive? Are you interested in developing
or participating in a women’s philanthropy initiative or project? What do
you like about working with other women? What could the organization do
to improve our connections with women?
Other useful points of inquiry for the woman donor are: Describe your
interactions with staff. Share your perception of the organization’s work with
women and for women. Who do you identify as your key supporter within
the organization? What would be your vision for a women’s philanthropy
86 L. A. Buntz
initiative? Why would it work or not? What would the organization need to
do differently if it incorporated a women’s philanthropy initiative?
The Fundraiser’s Role and Self-Evaluation

The fundraiser has three roles when working with women donors. The first is
to learn about how women practice philanthropy in order to understand their
capacity and to develop specific strategies that will engage and steward them.
The second role is to educate others within the organization about women
donors and how to work with them. Thirdly, fundraisers must assess how to
integrate women’s philanthropy into an organization or fundraising depart-
ment. Simone Joyaux, an author and fund development expert says that
fundraisers need to be organizational specialists, or people who “understand
how and why an organization’s infrastructure affects all of its activities, fund
development included. The most effective fundraisers pay attention to corpo-
rate culture, respect systems, and learn about group behavior. These highly
competent fundraisers are change agents. They assess fund development by
looking at everything else in the organization—maybe even first” (Joyaux,
2011).
Assessing your organization’s capacity to work with women donors can be
a humbling process. Most nonprofits engage in fundraising techniques that
were developed over time by philanthropy professionals and have become
established as accepted “best practices.” These practices do not have to be
cast aside, but rather modified to meet the needs of women donors.
Good fundraisers come in all genders, ages, and ethnicities. Women want
and like to work with a wide variety of fundraisers, but especially appre-
ciate professionals who have an interest and desire to helping them learn
about philanthropy and grow as a giver. What matters are an individual’s
perceptions about women, interactions with them, understanding of how
they practice philanthropy, and most importantly, a desire to partner with
them and help them find their philanthropic passions.
Good fundraisers know that relationships are at the core of their work.
Dale Carnegie, the famous self-help guru, is reported to have said, “You’ll
have more fun and success when you stop trying to get what you want and
start helping other people get what they want” (Joyaux, 2011). Put your
donors first and listen to them. Here is a brief self-evaluation for fundraisers
interested in this work.
1. What education, experiences or other characteristics make you a good

candidate to work within a women’s philanthropy program?
2. Think about an early childhood experience you had with a female
relative, teacher, or friend that established some of your beliefs about
women’s philanthropy. What are those beliefs? Write them down.
3. What experiences have you had in your education or professional
career that influenced your ideas about women and their philanthropy?
Describe them and what you learned.
4. Think about your beliefs about how women learn about and understand
financial matters. Is there any gender bias about women’s knowledge
base? What has informed your beliefs? What are your beliefs and attitudes
about financial management and wealth accumulation?
5. Have you observed fundraisers treating men and women donors differ-
ently? If so, what was the situation and your interpretation of it?
6. Do you have different perceptions of women’s philanthropy based on the
woman’s age, marital status, education, or experiences? Do you believe
there are generational differences? If so, what might they be?
7. What would you uniquely bring to a women’s philanthropy initiative
that would make you a valuable fundraiser?
8. Why would you want to work within a women’s philanthropy initiative?
9. Women’s philanthropy is about leadership, investments, and advocacy.
Which would you be the most interested in? Why?
10. What do you want to learn about women’s philanthropy and why?
11. What is your vision for a women’s philanthropy initiative?
12. How does your vision for an initiative align with your personal values
and vision?
Finally, as organizational leaders think about the investment of building

a women’s philanthropy initiative remember this observation, “The work of
nonprofit organizations has shifted in the past several decades from investing
in program replication, to building organizational capacity, to serving as
catalytic agents of change” (Crutchfield & Grant, 2008). The shift that
Crutchfield and Grant mentions mirrors what women donors want—to make
a difference in their community. Women have the power and resources to
create change and make a difference, if they are organized and encouraged.
Women’s philanthropy initiatives are one avenue to achieve that goal.
88 L. A. Buntz
Bibliography
American Heart Association. (2021). Milestones. Retrieved May 21, 2019, from
https://www.Goredforwomen.org/en/about-go-red-for-women
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last. Harper Business. Harper Collins
Publishing.
Crutchfield, L. R., & Grant, H. M. (2008). Forces of Good . Jossey Bass.
Fernandez, S. (1998). History of the pink ribbon: Pretty in pink. Think before you
pick.org a project of the Breast Cancer Society. Retrieved February 22, 2019, from
http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/resources/history-of-the-pink-ribbon
Filla, J. (2020, June 25). Why and how to cultivate women donors. Chronicle of
Philanthropy. Webinar.
Heylighen, F., & Josley, C. (1992). What is systems theory, principia cybernetica web.
Prepared for the Cambridge dictionary. Cambridge University Press.
Joyaux, S. (2011). Strategic fund development. Wiley.
Mesch, D., & Pactor, A., (2009). Women’s philanthropy on campus. The women’s
philanthropy institute. Retrieved August 3, 2021, from http://hdl.handle.net/
1805/6261.
O’Neil, M. (2016). Women primed to give big—If nonprofits are willing to change.
Chronicle of Philanthropy. Washington, DC.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey Bass.
Stiffman, E., & Haynes, E. (2019, November 8). Can the boom times last? America’s
favorite charities. Chronicle of Philanthropy (based on cash support). Washington,
DC.
Teegarden, P. H., Hinden, D. R., & Sturm, P. (2011). The nonprofit organizational
culture guide. Jossey-Bass.
United Way. (2021). Retrieved May 1, 2021, from https://www.unitedway.org/
about/history
Women and Philanthropy at UCLA. (2021). Retrieved May 2, 2021, from https://
women.support.ucla.ed/index/home/philanthropoy/mission/
Women Moving Millions. (2021). Retrieved May 24, 2021, from https://womenm
ovingmillions.org
Women’s Philanthropy Institute. (2021). Retrieved March 10, 2021, from https://
philanthropy.iupui.edu/institutes/womens-philanthropy-institute/index.html
7
Alignment: Helping Donors Find Their
Passion
Aligning a donor’s wealth with her charitable interests and values takes time,
patience, and knowledge on the part of a fund development professional. It
doesn’t happen quickly or easily, but when it does, it’s truly magic. Because
there is a positive relationship between giving money, or volunteering time
to others and the well-being of the giver, alignment is what makes philan-
thropy a joyful and memorable experience for both donor and fundraiser
(Konrath, 2014/2016, pp. 287–426). Volunteering and giving to charitable
organizations results in increased psychological well-being, enriched social
relationships, and better physical health (Konrath & Brown, 2012). Only
recently have researchers explored whether men and women experience the
joy of giving differently, or if the impact of giving on overall happiness varies
by gender. This chapter will help answer those questions and focus on two key
strategies for alignment: identification of a donor’s values and understanding
her wealth capacity.
Charitable Giving and Life Satisfaction: Does

Gender Matter?
The terms life satisfaction, happiness, and well-being are sometimes used
interchangeably. The following research conducted by the Women’s Philan-
thropy Institute focuses on life satisfaction using the definition “an overall
assessment of feelings and attitudes about one’s life at a particular point

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_7
90 L. A. Buntz
in time ranging from positive to negative” (Prasoon & Chaturvedi, 2016,

pp. 25–32). Here are some of the findings.
• Giving makes us happy. Giving to charitable organizations is positively

related to life satisfaction. The more a household gives as a percentage of
income, the higher the household’s life satisfaction (Mesch et al., 2017,
pp. 5, 18).
• Changes in giving habits affect men and women differently. Single men see
the biggest increase in satisfaction when they become donors. For single
and married women, satisfaction increases most when they increase their
giving (Mesch et al., 2017, p. 5).
• When women drive charitable decisions, more giving means more satisfac-
tion. In households where either the woman makes charitable decisions or
spouses make them jointly, life satisfaction increases with the percentage of
household income given to charity (Mesch et al., 2017, p. 5).
• This impact is greater in lower and middle-income households. For households
where charitable decisions are driven by women and more than 2% of their
income is given to charity, households making less than $100,000 annually
experience more boost in life satisfaction than those making $100,000 or
more (Mesch et al., 2017, p. 5).
So, if giving makes us happy, increases our life satisfaction, and positively
impacts the lives of women and their households, how can fundraisers help
women align their values, interests, passions, and aspirations with their wealth
capacities? The fundraiser’s task is to learn as much as possible about these
elements and to guide the donor, helping her discover how to strategically
use her wealth to achieve her aspirations while fueling her passion for specific
causes.
What Do Women Care About?

Jacki Zehner, the former Chief Engagement Officer for Women Moving
Millions once said, “Women want money not so much for what it can buy,
but rather for what it can do. They want to provide for their family, but
also be in service to others” (Zehner, personal communication, November 17,
2017). Women care about their families, communities, and nonprofit causes.
They care about other women. They know that investing in the future of
families and the community will pay high dividends in the long term. The
Center for Talent Innovations (CTI) surveyed nearly 6,000 investors in the
U.S. and five international locations and found that fully 90% of women
in the global sample said making a positive impact on society is important
(Hewlett et al., 2014). Seventy-nine percent of women versus 62% of men
want to invest in organizations that invest in social good, and women are
48% more likely than men to want to invest in alleviating poverty (Turner
Moffitt, 2015, p. 51). Women are 88% more likely to donate to education
charities and 46% more likely than men to want to invest in initiatives that
improve education or access to it (Turner Moffit, 2015, p. 51). The envi-
ronment is another priority for women, and they are 25% more likely to
invest in this agenda (Turner Moffit, 2015). Finally, women want to invest
in the future of women. Overall, 77% of women in the CTI survey wanted
to invest in companies or organizations with diversity in leadership (Hewlett
et al., 2014).
As women continue to acquire financial resources, they begin to identify
key areas of interests that align with their philanthropic choices. The Women’s
Philanthropy Institute surveyed a small sampling of HNW women who had
made significant gifts to support women and girls and found that these
women had similar philanthropy journeys: (1) they learned about philan-
thropy early in life, (2) they made small, but meaningful gifts as adults, (3)
they acquired more wealth, (4) they educated themselves about giving and
(5) they made multi-million-dollar commitments (Mesch et al., 2018, p. 13).
Many of these women selected investments in women and girls because they
had observed or experienced the injustices and inequities women face and
identified with the challenges women encounter as they mature and enter the
work force.
When women think about making philanthropic investments, they want
to know that their gift makes a difference and has an impact. Some of their
giving may be short term and transactional in nature, but over time and with
greater awareness of their personal values, they can move into a deeper level
of philanthropy, one that is truly transformational for themselves and others.
One of the tasks of the fundraiser is to help women clarify and prioritize the
values that drive their decision-making in all areas of life and will ultimately
influence their philanthropy.
Exercise for Values Clarification

and Decision-Making
In Chapter 4, we discussed the linkage between a woman’s interests, values,
and her giving. Now is the time to refine those so a donor can begin to
92 L. A. Buntz
become more strategic in her giving. Values are those characteristics that we
hold in the highest esteem. They drive our behavior and choices, where and
how we spend our time and money. When meeting with a donor, plan to
spend some time exploring the development of her values. It is important
to focus on her values versus a couple’s values, because they may not be the
same. Open-ended questions are best because they require more explanation
and may lead to a productive conversation. Here are some possible questions
for discussion:
1. Identify several people who have influenced your life. Explain why each
was important to you.
2. What did each person teach you about life and philanthropy?
3. Name two or three experiences, positive or negative, that shaped your life.
4. List your top five values in order of priority, beginning with the most
important. Explain why these are important and why they are rated in
this sequence.
5. How would those values align with some philanthropic investments?
6. What are your biggest fears or concerns that might interfere with your
philanthropy journey?
7. Name three things you would like to accomplish with your philanthropy.
8. Name three ways that you would like to give.
9. What would you like your legacy to be?
Though brief, these are tough, thought provoking questions not easily
answered without some serious consideration. Questions can be asked in a
group or in one-to-one meetings with a donor or couple. Keep in mind that
each member of the couple may respond differently to the questions. The
goal is to help a donor think about her philanthropy as an extension of her
life and her legacy.
Author and philanthropist Tracy Gary suggests that donors write a mission
statement after they have discussed and clarified their values. Answering ques-
tion #7 above is the beginning of that mission statement. It can be a sentence
or paragraph, visionary, or practical. It just has to be unique to the prospec-
tive donor. Gary recommends including personal interests, what a donor
thinks she can improve or change about the issue(s) she cares about, and
some specific action over a specific period of time (Gary, 2008, p. 64).
The next step is to align values and interests with a cause to support. This
process helps the donor examine her range of philanthropic options. Have her
list her top causes or concerns about the community, her region, or the world.
Prioritizing the causes and concerns can be matched with values. Causes that
are rated lower on the list may be identified as areas for smaller contributions,
transactional gifts, or dropped off the list so that more important causes may
be considered for more intense levels of involvement, including volunteering,
transitional, or transformational gifts. Identifying the level of engagement
that a donor wants will help align her philanthropy with the cause, creating a
matrix of interests and gifts, so she transitions from giving reactively to being
more proactive.
Journey from Transaction to Transformation

Most fund development professionals know the evolution of a donor’s giving
or potential giving. Donors begin with small transactions and minimal
involvement in the cause, program, or service. Over time and through cultiva-
tion donors either increase their engagement and investment, decrease their
giving, stop giving, or swerve to a different cause or organization. Transac-
tional giving is an exchange where the focus is the gift, it meets a need,
perhaps satisfies the fundraiser, but rarely does it build a relationship with
the donor. Transactional philanthropy will always be a part of a donor’s life
cycle, but research shows that women want more. They want to understand,
become engaged, and create change. Moving from a transaction to philan-
thropy that is deep and meaningful takes time. Rarely do donors jump from
small transactions to large-scale gifts that challenge their capacity and touch
their soul. The movement along this continuum usually includes a middle
stage, frequently referred to as transitional giving (Fig. 7.1).
Transitional donors are individuals who have been giving to a cause or
nonprofit consistently usually in a mid-level range (defined by the organi-
zation). These donors care about a cause that aligns with their values and
interests, but they haven’t made a distinct connection about how to deepen
their engagement. They have capacity and may have steadily increased their
giving, but they hover between becoming more engaged or staying comfort-
ably distant (Qgive, 2021). New evidence suggests that by combining the
elements of direct marketing and a major gifts strategy transitional donors
may increase their contributions. Consider for example when the Kennedy
TransacƟonal TransiƟonal TransformaƟonal
Fig. 7.1 Transactional to transformational gifts

94 L. A. Buntz
Center in Washington, DC targeted this group of donors, developed a Circles

Board (an advisory group of mid-level donors), and shifted their direct mail
marketing to an outside firm to free up staff time. Twenty-five of their 45
Circle board members increased their giving by $2,400 (Wallace, 2018).
Many women are giving in mid-level ranges (usually defined at $1,000–
$10,000) and will be good prospects for increased philanthropy. However,
be aware that sometimes women donors take longer to make decisions about
increasing their level of giving. That is the time to provide more informa-
tion, more connection, and to explore through conversations her interests,
concerns, and goals.
Frequently, the goal of fundraisers is to move donors toward larger or more
impactful gifts—a strategy referred to as moves management . It is a process of
working with a donor to help identify causes and to align different types of
gifts and amounts with the cause. Most often, the goal is an increase in the
size of a contribution, but it might also include increased volunteer involve-
ment, acting as a spokesperson for the project, or championing the cause to
other donors. It is important to provide a wide range of options. Donors iden-
tified for moves management usually receive very strategic interactions from
the fund development team. Donors who respond with interest in deeper
levels of engagement may be identified as prospects for transformational gifts.
Transformational gifts are those opportunities for a donor to express her
deep commitment to a cause with a very personal and impactful investment.
They are built on trusting relationships and can create new partnerships,
inspire others, prompt system changes, or significantly impact the future of a
person, program, or organization. Transformational gifts are true alignments
based on a woman’s values, interests, passions, and deep commitment to
change. These gifts don’t happen every day, and not every donor will become
a transformational giver, but when it happens, it may look something like
this:
A Transformational Gift
Philanthropic giving has become a part of Suzy and Chris DeWolf ’s life.
Known as generous and regular supporters of education, social services, arts,
culture and healthcare, they have been influenced by their families, commu-
nity, faith, and entrepreneurial spirit. As their wealth capacity has changed,
they have stepped into philanthropy with larger and more impactful gifts.
Suzy grew up in the Midwest and during her childhood her parents were
modest donors mostly focused on giving at their church. When her father
decided to purchase a business called Lil’ Drug Store Products in 1978, the
family’s ability to give through the company, as well as personally increased.
In 1995 Suzy married Chris and they began their philanthropy on a small
scale, participating in charity events, giving at their church, raising three
children, and volunteering for causes. In 2005, after the death of Suzy’s
father, Dennis, Suzy and her husband purchased the business. The family’s
loss prompted Suzy and her mother to work with a local hospital to design
and create a hospice house for families with loved ones in the final stages of
life. The Dennis and Donna Oldorf Hospice House of Mercy was opened in
2007. Suzy was inspired by her mother’s choice to make the lead gift, “It’s
a humble and spiritual feeling to realize the peace these people feel having
experienced such a special place,” she said (DeWolf, personal communica-
tion, June 28, 2021). In addition to making their own gift to this very
personal project, Suzy and Chris began to realize the power and impact of
philanthropy.
Since that time, Lil’ Drug Store Products has prospered. Suzy and Chris
have broadened their philanthropy: they have served as campaign chairs
for Four Oaks—Total Child, a child welfare program, focused on creating
and implementing innovative programs for high-risk families, rebuilding
neighborhoods, and providing a stable long-term investment in children’s
education; they have supported a new scholarship program at the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin, Suzy’s alma mater; they invested in their church’s capital
campaign and created a family fund at the local community foundation so
they can teach their children about making good philanthropy investments.
As they make decisions together, their philosophy and approach to giving
are a bit different from others. When approached by an organization about
funding something that might not be the right fit for them, instead of saying
no, they ask the fundraiser to think differently and then to apply again,
pushing service providers and nonprofit leaders to be more innovative and
creative.
In 2021, the DeWolff ’s made what they describe as the most transforma-
tional gift of their lifetime. They pledged $2 million dollars to help create the
Chris and Suzy DeWolf Family Innovation Center for Aging and Dementia
at Mercy Hospital in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. This lead gift will build facilities
for dementia patients and create a research center to help healthcare profes-
sionals learn about dementia, how to treat it and care for the entire family.
When asked if the sizable gift was a difficult decision to make, Suzy replied,
“No, we had been involved in the planning and visioning of this facility from
the start, we trust the organization, its staff and leadership, and truly believe
it can positively impact the community and families, perhaps changing the
96 L. A. Buntz
way we treat dementia patients now and in the future” (DeWolf, personal
communication, June 28, 2021). While this gift is the largest the DeWolfs
have given to date, Suzy believes there may be future opportunities to make
transformational investments that change her community.
The Surprise of Giving

Values are created through life experiences, and no one knows that better than
Dr. Tererai Trent, whose inspirational story is chronicled in her book The
Awakened Woman: Remembering and Reigniting Our Sacred Dreams. Growing
up in a small village in Zimbabwe, Trent challenged the traditional female
roles of her culture and achieved phenomenal success despite a childhood
filled with poverty, a teen marriage, and domestic abuse. Fortunately, she was
supported and inspired by other women including her mother and a U.S. aid
worker. Her goals were dreams she chose to write down: go to America, get
an undergraduate degree, a master’s degree, and a Ph.D (Trent, 2017, p. 52).
Over the course of fifteen years, she accomplished all of them.
When Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, authors of Half the Sky inter-
viewed Trent and wrote about her dreams, the story captured the attention
of Oprah who invited Trent to share her journey on national TV. Oprah was
truly inspired and Tererai became known as her favorite guest. But the big
surprise was a $1.5 million contribution from Oprah to help build a school
in Zimbabwe, a dream of Trent’s. Today, Trent is an international leader,
scholar, and motivational speaker. Her desire to give back to her commu-
nity made Oprah’s gift truly transformational for the girls in Trent’s village
who need an education and hope that the future can be different. Transfor-
mational gifts impact donors, recipients, and brokers, providing a sense of
warmth, satisfaction, joy, peace, and, excitement some even describe it as a
spiritual experience.
Understanding Wealth Capacity

Sunny Fischer, co-founder and former Executive Director of the Chicago
Foundation for Women, has seen many women become empowered through
philanthropy that aligns with their interests and values. She has also observed
many women who don’t understand their wealth, assets, or options. Years
ago, when the Foundation was still relatively new, Fischer received a check
and note in the mail. The $50.00 check was a small gift, but it was the note
attached that caught her attention. “This is the first time I have written a
check without my husband’s permission.” The donor went on, “He writes
checks for anything he wants to without asking me” (Fischer, personal
communication, 2019).
Obviously, the work of the Chicago Foundation for Women was a cause
this donor wanted to support and this was her moment of empowerment,
the beginning of her philanthropic journey. She took the first step of using
her money to fund something that aligned with her interests and values.
That $50.00 check probably felt like $50,000 when she wrote it. Choosing a
cause is a beginning, but understanding the power of philanthropy includes
understanding one’s financial circumstances and wealth capacity.
Money is scary and exciting. It’s empowering and transformative, a neces-
sary element in life. Almost everyone needs money to survive and the amount
we have, how we obtained it, how we feel about it, and what we do with it
is a very personal journey. Ask anyone to describe their thoughts and feelings
about money—if you are brave enough—and you’ll be surprised by what
you hear. Most people don’t like to talk about money. It’s one of those taboo
subjects that’s intensely personal, like sex and religion.
Here are few facts about women and their money. Sixty-six percent of
women describe themselves as the decision-maker over household assets
(Turner Moffit, 2015, p. 23). Seventy-five percent of wealth creators describe
themselves as decision-makers as do 66% of inheritors and 43% of women
whose spouse created the wealth (Hewlett et al., 2014). Women control $20
trillion in consumer spending, make the decision in the purchases of 92%
of home furnishings, 92% of vacations, 91% of homes, 60% of automo-
biles, and 51% of consumer electronics (Silverstein & Sayre, 2009). However,
many women still lack confidence in their decision-maker role. A UBS
Wealth Management Report found that 85% of married women believe their
husbands know more about financial matters and investments than they do
and only 55% of women feel confident making long-term financial decisions
versus 79% of men (UBS, 2018). The irony of this situation is that some
research estimates eight out of ten women will end up solely responsible for
their financial well-being due to longer life expectancy and high divorce rates.
So, it is imperative that women become more knowledgeable and involved in
their financial situations.
When women think about money, they envision long-term investments
focused on family, college for the children and mortgage reduction, versus
men who tend to be more focused on short-term immediate investment
returns (Livingston, 2015, p. 11). As one investment professional told me,
“Men want to compete with their friends about how well their investments
98 L. A. Buntz
are doing and are more focused on the numbers. It can be a sort of compe-
tition.” On the other hand, women are more comfortable saving versus
investing and proportionately save more of their income than men both in
workplace retirement accounts and outside accounts like IRAs (Livingston,
2015, p. 5). Most importantly, when surveyed, 88% of women equate wealth
with financial security and independence (Turner Moffit, 2015, p. 25). They
want to be assured that they will have adequate funds to care for their fami-
lies and their futures. But overall, men have more money saved despite these
trends because their wages are usually higher than women’s and they are in
the workforce more consistently.
Financial guru Suze Orman, in her book Women and Money, explains that
women have a complicated relationship with money. They have a tendency to
take care of everyone: their spouse, children, friends, neighbors, but they don’t
take care of their money. Women tend to have a dysfunctional relationship
with it (Orman, 2007, p. 12). They ignore financial matters, feel embarrassed,
ashamed, or just leave it for someone else to manage. How many stories have
been written about women who have been swindled out of their life savings,
or didn’t realize their husband was in debt until it was too late? A recent
survey found that 40% of couples didn’t even know how much their spouse
earned and 36% disagreed on their joint investable assets (Block & Clark,
2016).
Learning about your financial situation is not easy. It takes dedication,
time, and practice. One of the resources fundraisers can offer is to help
connect women with financial experts who can help them understand their
wealth capacity and increase their confidence about financial management.
Finding an advisor who understands women and can practice good listening
skills and patience is the key. One of the common complaints women have
about financial advisors is that they don’t listen and spend too much time
trying to sell a product.
Kiplinger, a personal financial management firm, suggests that women
should start asking questions and explore. In addition to the basics of
knowing what is in your cash accounts and investments, they recommend
reviewing your beneficiaries, saving for retirement, establishing an estate plan,
and planning for the future healthcare costs of yourself and your family.
Morgan Stanley Wealth Management holds seminars designed specifically
for female clients. The focus is on helping women identify the unique chal-
lenges they may face in their lifetime: caregiving, fewer years earning income,
income inequality, divorce, loss of a spouse, and risk tolerance. Tailoring
information for women is a smart and effective strategy. Helping women
build wealth management plans that encompass their personal and family
objectives makes the experience more personal. Most importantly, women

want to be listened to and acknowledged, they don’t want an off the shelf
product. Women want to learn, consult with others, and take time to make
the best decisions for themselves and their families.
Understanding their financial situation can be very empowering for
women. They can begin to make choices, participate more actively in chari-
table decisions, and plan for their futures. But understanding is not enough.
They need access, authority, and confidence. The less confident women are,
the larger the gap between desire and action, between what they say they
want to invest in or donate to, and what they actually do. Here are some ways
fundraisers can assist women in learning more about their financial situation.
• Partner with a variety of professional financial advisors to offer workshops

designed specifically for women interested in understanding their financial
situations. Wealth advisors have to win over women by giving them a safe
place to learn and by serving up products that align with their larger needs
to deploy wealth in socially responsible ways (Turner Moffit, 2015, p. 53).
• Provide information on your website about charitable giving, with tips and
updated tax laws. Design tips focused on women’s issues: childcare, elder
care, healthcare.
• Ask a variety of financial counselors in your community to do feature arti-
cles about charitable donations written specifically for a female audience.
• Encourage women donors to meet with a financial advisor or attorney to
discuss their current asset base.
• Provide workshops on estate planning or planned giving.
• Create a women’s advisory council to talk about financial situations of
special interest to women: Invite guest speakers to share financial knowl-
edge and answer questions.
• Highlight a woman donor willing to share her story about financial
learning and charitable giving.
Offering these options to all interested women, even those who are not
your donors, accomplishes several goals: You provide a service to current and
future donors.
You can begin to match donor’s wealth to interests. Your organization
expands its network of possible donors. You build new partnerships.
As you help women align their philanthropic interests with their pock-
etbooks, they will grow in level of confidence and desire to invest. Gloria
Steinem reportedly said, “We can tell our values by looking at our checkbook
100 L. A. Buntz
stubs.” Although checkbooks are a tool of the past for some donors, her senti-
ments are still relevant. Have potential donors look where they spend their
money and it will tell them what’s important in their lives. Are they happy
with the picture? If not, you can help them change it.
Bibliography
Block, S., & Clark, J. (2016). What women need to know about money. Kiplinger
Report. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from https://kiplinger.com/article/retirement/
t047-c000-s002-what-women-need-to-know-about-money.html
Gary, T. (2008). Inspired philanthropy. Jossey-Bass, Wiley, and Sons.
Hewlett, S., Moffitt, T. A., & Marshall, M. (2014). Harnessing the power of the
purse: Female investors and global opportunities for growth. Center for Talent
Innovation. Retrieved September 11, 2019, from https://cdn2.hubspot.net/
hubfs/5341408/EP_Wealth_Advisors_April2019/pdf/HarnessingThePowerOfT
hePurse_ExecSumm-CTI-Confidential.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqwaBHF45QI. Retrieved November 4, 2020.
Oprah Surprises Tererai Trent.
Konrath, S. (2014/2016). The power of philanthropy and volunteering. In F. A.
Huppert & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, Volume VI:
Interventions and policies to enhance wellbeing (pp. 387–426). Wiley.
Konrath, S., & Brown, S. (2012). The effects of giving on givers. In N. Roberts &
M. Newman (Eds.), Health and social relationships: The good, the bad, and the
complicated (p. 18). American Psychological Association.
Livingston, A. (2015). Men, women and money—How the sexes differ with their
finances. Money Management. Retrieved April 16, 2019, from https://www.mon
eycrashers.com/men-women-money-sexes-differ-finances/
Mesch, D., Osili, U., Okten, C., Han, X., Pactor, A., & Ackerman J. (2017).
Women give 17 charitable giving and life satisfaction: Does gender matter? Women’s
Mesch, D., Osili. U., Pactor, A., Ackerman, J., & O’Connor, H. (2018). Giving by
and for women: Understanding high-net worth donors’ support for women and girls.
Orman, S. (2007). Women and money. Spiegel and Grau.
Prasoon, R., & Chaturvedi, K. R. (2016). Life satisfaction: A literature review.
International Journal of Management Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(2), 25–32.
Retrieved May 6, 2020, from http://theresearcherjournal.org/pdfs/01021220163.
pdf
Qgive. (2021). Donor Stewardship: Create life-long donors in 6 steps. Retrieved June
30, 2020, from https://www.qgive.com/blog/donor-stewardship-guide/
Silverstein, M., & Sayre, K. (2009). The female economy. The Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-eco
nomy
Trent, T. (2017). The awakened woman. An Imprint of Simon and Schuster, Inc.
Turner Moffitt, A. (2015). Harness the power of the purse: Winning women investors.
Rare Bird Books.
Wallace, N. (2018). Midlevel donor programs grow in popularity- and sophistica-
tion. Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved June 15, 2020, from https://www.phi
lanthropy.com/article/how-to-inspire-midlevel-donors-to-give-more/
UBS Wealth Management Report. (2018). Top reasons married women step aside in
long term financial decisions: They believe their husbands know more. Retrieved
March 8, 2019, from https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/201804130
05223/en/UBS-Reveals-Top-Reason-Married-Women-Step-Aside-in-Long-Term-
Financial-Decisions-They-Believe-Their-Husbands-Know-More
8
Action: Making It Happen
Building initiatives for women donors begins with a desire to expand and
enhance the impact of women in your community. The previous chapters
have focused on: developing an awareness of the women’s philanthropy move-
ment, how women practice philanthropy, assessing women’s wealth origins,
an organization’s ability to develop a women’s philanthropy initiative, and
aligning women’s philanthropic interests and values with their wealth capac-
ities. These elements establish a foundation for the implementation of a
women’s philanthropy initiative. A review of several women’s philanthropy
initiatives in different stages of development provides some insight into what
is possible and successful.
Traditional Model of Organizational

Development
Typical philanthropy programs are developed within organizations that have a
defined structure and life cycle. Building an organization begins with a vision
that is created and championed by a leader who inspires followers to join
the identified cause. The implementation of the vision is realized by creating
goals and objectives—what will be accomplished and how will it happen? A
strategy, or overarching method of carrying out the objectives, is designed
specifically for a target audience and includes different types of communica-
tion, contacts, messaging, meetings, and calls to action. Individual staff are

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_8
104 L. A. Buntz
Vision -
Mission
Goals-
Evaluation
Objectives
Strategy-
Metrics
Structure
Fig. 8.1 The cycle of organizational development
assigned actions and activities intended to accomplish the objectives forming

an organizational or program structure. To support the work of the programs
and services, back office systems including technology and communications
are created. Finally, before implementation, a set of metrics of success is
outlined. Evaluation occurs continuously, allowing for constant adaptation.
These characteristics of an organization are present in almost every nonprofit
or for-profit company. How and when they are developed is directly linked
to the life cycle of an organization (Fig. 8.1).
Organizational Life Stages

Most women’s philanthropy initiatives develop as independent nonprofits
or have an administrative home in a nonprofit. Their ability to thrive and
grow is directly linked to the organization’s ability to transition through
its life cycle and continue to renew itself. Judy Sharken Simon, an orga-
nizational development consultant, has defined five life stages of nonprofit
organizations:
Stage 1—Imagine and Inspire
Stage 2—Found and Frame

Stage 3—Ground and Grow
Stage 4—Produce and Sustain
Stage 5—Review and Renew (Simon, 2012).
Stage 1, or early-stage organizations, are small and nimble, lacking defined
systems, specialization, or adequate funding. Their visionary leaders or
founders inspire followers and over time, as their ideas become more defined,
small programs or services evolve. Stage 2 encompasses the development of
structures including a board, recruiting donors, program expansion, and a
continuous pursuit for more resources. Stage 3 organizations are growing in
size and complexity. They are stable, have policies, procedures, programs,
structure and systems, including more staff, marketing strategies, and tech-
nology. The organizational mission has been refined and programs are
securely positioned for growth, but the need for funding to sustain the orga-
nization is continually challenging. Stage 4 organizations continue to evolve
and change, but with a greater degree of stability. During this life-stage,
organizations become more complex, bureaucratic, larger, financially more
stable with a solid donor base, established brand and produce well-recognized
programs, and services. But, the possibility of complacency hovers. Organi-
zations assume their growth will continue indefinitely, yet without attention
to innovation and constant quality improvement, the organization may begin
to decline, slowly or quickly. Stage 5 is the turning point in an organization’s
life cycle. After becoming an established institution, its practices, policies
and processes need renewal. Some organizations at this phase are in decline
because they haven’t adapted to changing environmental conditions or are
in financial distress. Ultimately, organizations have to re-emerge with new
vision, vigor, ideas, and often, leadership. Stage 5 is that renewal. Without it
organizations will teeter on the brink of deterioration, become ineffective, or
become a candidate for acquisition by another organization that can provide
stability and security.
Women’s philanthropy initiatives can be found in any stage of organi-
zational development. If they are located within a larger organization and
established when the organization began, their life cycle may be dependent
on their parent organization. If the initiative was added after an organiza-
tion was well established, it will have its own life-stage cycle which may not
coincide with the host organization.
Let’s consider three case studies of women’s philanthropy initiatives in
different life stages. They vary in scope and size. Some are integrated into
existing foundations or fund development departments while others are
independent or interconnected with other community partners.
106 L. A. Buntz
Early Stage: 5224GOOD—Grassroots and Local

Mary Westbrook, a former Senior Vice President of NCS Pearson, Inc. retired
in 2008 and began to fill her time with volunteer work including acting as an
interim CEO at a local United Way, serving on the board of the Community
Foundation of Johnson County, Iowa and eventually becoming one of the
co-founders of a women’s giving circle—5224GOOD (pronounced 5-2-2-4-
GOOD).
Westbrook knows her community and is well-respected as a professional
and volunteer. She has been involved in numerous fundraising events in her
career and is not afraid to ask for money, but it was more than money
that was her interest as she developed a women’s philanthropy initiative.
Her path to the creation of 5224GOOD began with her involvement in a
United Way women’s leadership program’s annual purse auction. As a volun-
teer primarily on the auction committee, Westbrook loved finding donations,
creating opportunities for people to become engaged, and recruiting women
to attend the event. She was also an astute observer of women’s interactions
at fundraising events, and recognized a problem with the auction approach.
“The concept of big auctions where competitive bidding is used may fuel
some donors, but it doesn’t work for most women,” she says. “Women don’t
want to take from other women or beat them out of a gift. They don’t want
to be public about everything they give, or show off. They like equality or
sharing. It’s better to have a lot of winners, rather than just one” (Westbrook,
personal communication, February 12, 2020). Creating something that built
on the ways women work with each other was at the heart of what Westbrook
wanted to do.
One afternoon she and a colleague began to brainstorm about the concept
of a giving circle. One of her friends had participated in a similar venture
in California and wanted to bring the idea to the Iowa City, Iowa commu-
nity. As Westbrook and her friend, Anne Vanderberg, talked, they identified
their goals: create a women’s giving initiative that would be inclusive, inti-
mate, fun, educational and raise money for a community cause. Based in a
university town, Westbrook and Vanderberg knew that they had a large pool
of educated, interested women. Each invited four friends to build the core of
the giving initiative. Using the Iowa City zip code 5-2-2-4-0 and substituting
the final number with “good” created a catchy name.
One of their first decisions was to find a strong administrative partner, an
organization that could provide the infrastructure for the program. The local
community foundation had the ability to provide that support; they had a
solid reputation, staff that understood philanthropy, and were interested in

being a partner in the endeavor.
How to implement the concept was the devil in the details. In anticipa-
tion of the myriad questions that might arise, Westbrook and Vanderberg
outlined a basic model for the start-up. Their core team included an attorney
who volunteered to write by-laws, and finance experts to help establish a
budget. And, they designed a meeting format before officially launching the
initiative: four meetings a year: (1) Learning about the topic; (2) Inviting
nonprofit agencies to tell members about their services and to possibly submit
a proposal to the giving circle; (3) Selecting proposals to fund; (4) Celebrating
and brainstorming the next year’s issue. The core team recruited women to
the giving circle, asking each to commit to giving at least $250 annually
to a pooled fund that would be distributed to nonprofits which submitted
proposals aligning with the topic/issue selected by the circle’s members. As
one member commented, “Where else can I contribute $250 and participate
in the decision of granting $40,000 a year?”
They also built-in an endowment option from the start, asking for up to
$1,000 from each woman, although giving at that level was not mandatory.
The additional monies, up to $750 per donor, were put in an endowment
fund for the legacy of the program.
While a local bank sponsors the giving circle meetings, (a good
marketing strategy for promoting the bank and recruiting women customers)
nonprofit agencies submit proposals for funding which are initially screened
by the community foundation grants committee, minimizing work for
5224GOOD. Each year, membership dues plus a 5% draw from the endow-
ment, fund grants distributed to nonprofit agencies. Since its inception in
2014, 5224GOOD has raised and distributed $213,500.
During COVID 5224GOOD had to pivot and adapt. Like many other
organizations, the leadership resorted to virtual meetings and adjusted their
granting process to prioritize COVID needs. They abandoned the focus
area they had selected in the prior year and simplified their grant applica-
tion. Instead of distributing funds once a year, the resources were spread
out to accommodate evolving COVID needs. Members still participated
by voting online and still maintained connection. Westbrook plans to have
5224GOOD meet in person as the COVID epidemic slows down and
meetings can be held inside.
Her involvement in a fundraiser for another organization was an addi-
tional example of COVID adaptation. The Power of the Purse (purse auction
for Women United ) was held online and over a period of a week instead
108 L. A. Buntz
of one afternoon, more tickets were sold because women could partici-
pate virtually and the event committee members made accommodations
for the winners of the bids, delivering their winnings. 5224GOOD and
other nonprofits have survived because of Westbrook’s adaptability and perse-
verance. Now Westbrook and Vanderberg are working on increasing the
number of 5224GOOD members from 140 upwards and increasing the
number of legacy donors from 30 to 50%. Westbrook’s motto is “Be bolder!”
(Westbrook, personal communication, February 12, 2020).
Adult Stage: Dartmouth College—Mature

and Integrated
Many universities have established foundations, sophisticated fundraising
departments, staff with specialized skills and significant pools of potential
donors, most of them alumni. They launch annual, endowment, and capital
campaigns raising funds with a wide range of contributions and donors.
Women donors contribute, but not all universities have realized the untapped
potential of this donor segment.
In 2014, Dartmouth brought together a group of loyal alumnae and
created an initiative to recruit 100 Dartmouth women to make gifts of
$100,000 or more in honor of the 100th anniversary of the Dartmouth
College Fund (Dartmouth College, 2018) (Inside Higher Ed 2018). One
hundred fourteen women joined the Centennial Circle raising almost $15
million to support students through financial aid. This community of women
has grown to 188 with women giving larger gifts and raising more than $30
million (Valburn, 2018). The success of this initiative prompted Dartmouth
to raise the bar and boldly ask women to give even more. In 2018, it estab-
lished a gender-specific campaign with a goal of asking 100 women to give
$1million each. At the launch, Dartmouth announced fifty-three alumnae
had already committed $1 million each. This women’s philanthropy initiative
was part of a three-billion-dollar multi-year campaign. Other goals included
celebrating the college’s 250th anniversary by increasing the membership of
the Centennial Circle to 250, and raising $25 million from alumnae and
widows of Dartmouth graduates making gifts of any size to renovate Dart-
mouth Hall (Valburn, 2018). This multi-level strategy offers an opportunity
for women at all income levels to participate, and significantly broadens the
base of potential donors. Seeing the impact of their gifts in the physical
changes at the college helps remind the women how they have contributed
to the evolution of the institution.
Giving financially is only part of the strategy to engage more women

donors and grow the visibility of women on campus. Women make up 50%
of the student body and 38% of the Board of Trustees (Valburn, 2018). Dart-
mouth wants to encourage more women to attend the university, hold board
positions, lead committees and participate in the leadership of the university
and foundation.
As a mature and well-established institution, Dartmouth used its organi-
zational strength and stability to support a new initiative. As women donors
demonstrated their commitment and capacity, the initiative evolved and
continued to grow—an excellent example of a mature and integrated women’s
philanthropy initiative.
Beth Cogan Fastcitelli, ’80, a Dartmouth Trustee said, “We want the next
generation of students, male and female, to know that women and men are
equally committed to the power of a Dartmouth education” (Valburn, 2018).
Renewal Stage: Iowa Women’s

Foundation—Adaptation and Re-Invention
From 2005 to 2013 Dawn Oliver Wiand was the Executive Director of
the Women’s Foundation of Greater Kansas City, Kansas, a large, successful
organization located in a metropolitan area with a diverse base of women
donors and a pool of HNW individuals. When Oliver Wiand relocated to
Iowa City, Iowa in 2013 and was hired as the Director of the Iowa Women’s
Foundation (IWF) she brought her wealth of knowledge and enthusiasm for
women’s philanthropy across the plains. The IWF was struggling, to put it
mildly; clinging to life support would be a more accurate description. The
donor base had eroded. A small, but limited group of supporters performed
minimal grant making, and annual luncheons for donors and prospects were
modestly attended. The organization had been in existence since 1995. It had
completed one life cycle and needed to adapt, modify, recreate itself or die.
IWF had made a strategic decision in previous years to focus first on grant
making and secondly on fundraising. While providing grants for services
is the mission of the organization, it cannot occur without funds. As Peter
Brinkerhoff, a nonprofit consultant says, “No money, no mission” (Brinker-
hoff, 2009, pp. 8–10). Oliver Wiand knew that the fundraising aspect of the
foundation needed to be improved.
Over the course of seven years, she rebuilt the organization. In 2014, she
created a higher level of awareness through Ovation: A Tribute to Women
and Girls, an annually published book that celebrates women from all walks
110 L. A. Buntz
of life: corporate executives, secretaries, moms, and volunteers. Recognized

by friends, family, or organizations, each volume features brief biographical
sketches and photos and is presented to the nominees at a public event. Often
the presentation is a surprise, and always it is a heartwarming recognition of
a woman’s impact on her family, friends, colleagues, and community.
Oliver Wiand began to use data and research to document the needs
of women and children in the state. With a staff of only 1.5, she knew
she couldn’t gather enough information or have enough time, expertise and
connections to identify the key issues and barriers of women. Partnering
with other women’s groups, they divided up the work. Women Lead Change
and the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics focused on
women’s leadership, the American Association of University Women took on
equity, and IWF focused its work on the impact of economic self-sufficiency
for women. Focus groups were convened in eighteen different communities.
Each group was asked the same eight questions. The goal of the study was to:
1. Learn firsthand about the most pressing challenges affecting economic

self-sufficiency for women and girls in the communities.
2. Identify existing initiatives to advance their success.
3. Determine what gaps in services and resources currently exist.
Six key barriers to economic self-sufficiency were identified: employment,

child care, housing, education/training, transportation, and mentors. A needs
assessment study entitled SHE MATTERS: We Listen and Iowa Wins was
published in 2016. This information provided a framework for grant making,
creating new partnerships, and developed a credibility quotient to the IWF
work. They had data to support their message about needs, to influence
donors, and to support requests for funds.
Moreover, IWF’s annual luncheon, a stable and historical event for the
foundation, gained momentum when sponsorships and table hosts were
recruited, eliminating the need to sell a large volume of individual tickets. The
purpose of the luncheon was to reveal the grants that were awarded and to
honor the recipients, educate donors and fundraise. In 2019, keynote speaker
Dr. Angela Sadler Williamson, a cousin of Rosa Parks, shared the story of her
documentary, My Life with Rosie. More than 800 women attended.
The women were back and excited about the foundation’s work. Since
its inception, IWF has distributed more than $1 million in grants to 200
organizations focused on programs for women and girls. In 2019, Oliver
Wiand launched a legacy campaign with a goal of $3 million. IWF was re-
created and is thriving. Then COVID hit in 2020 and IWF had to make
some radical decisions. Events had been 50% of the budget. They held their
annual luncheon virtually, but revenue was down 35%. “Women missed the
camaraderie of getting together and it’s hard to justify the cost when someone
is watching it on a computer screen” (Oliver Wiand, personal communica-
tion, June 15, 2021). The pandemic did produce new opportunities though.
IWF received funding from the Women’s Funding Network/Gates Founda-
tion for their work in childcare and for the first time applied for state funds
through a childcare challenge grant. Their innovation plans to solicit male
donors were carried out through a direct mail program. Oliver Wiand believes
some of their fundraising model will change. She plans to reduce depen-
dency on events and continue to pursue partnerships with male donors and
corporations.
Women’s Philanthropy versus Traditional

Program Development Models
Having considered three examples of women’s philanthropy initiatives in
different developmental stages offers some insight into how initiatives can
begin, evolve and adapt. Let’s examine some differences in women’s philan-
thropy initiatives versus the traditional organizational framework.
Vision and Mission

If women are looking for inspiration, they need to see themselves. They
need to believe that they can be the champions of the cause. The more
the champion is reflective of the donors being solicited, or in some cases,
of the recipients of services, the more identification women will have with
the initiative.
But what does it mean to be visionary? “The ability to frame current
practices as inadequate, to generate new ideas for new strategies, and to
communicate possibilities in inspiring ways” is one definition from a recent
Harvard Business Review article. The title of the article, “Women and the
Vision Thing” dissects the results of a 360-degree Assessment of the Euro-
pean Institute of Business (INSEAD) executive education program (INSEAD
is an international business school with global offices and an alliance with the
Wharton School of Business) (Ibarra & Obodaru, 2009).
In the study, when women were rated on their leadership skills they scored
higher than men in most categories, except the leadership trait of envisioning
112 L. A. Buntz
(Ibarra & Obodaru, 2009). Male respondents in the study rated women
lower in their envisioning capabilities, but female respondents did not rate
themselves lower than their male counterparts. These results prompted more
questions. Do women really struggle with being visionary? Perhaps women
are visionary in different ways? A more in-depth analysis of the findings drew
some interesting conclusions.
• Women see themselves as catalysts working collaboratively to create a

vision rather than doing so individually. They like input and believe they
get a richer product when more people can participate (Ibarra & Obodaru,
2009).
• Women rely a lot on facts, hard data. Accustomed to executing, they don’t
like going out on a limb with an idea with nothing to back it up.
• Rather than engaging in grand schemes that have no basis in fact, women
are more conservative and careful; they want to know how the idea will
work (Ibarra & Obodaru, 2009).
• Women think about and value “vision” differently from men. Women
focus on getting the work done (Ibarra & Obodaru, 2009).
As Margaret Thatcher is reported to have said, “If you want anything said,
ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman.” Women know that
vision is important, but valueless if the work doesn’t get completed. Thus, in
building a women’s philanthropy initiative, consider structuring the visioning
process as a group activity versus a solo flight. Encourage women to bravely
speak their ideas, even if all the details aren’t worked out. The mission of
the initiative needs to explain the work and purpose. What will the initiative
do? Make it meaningful and easy to understand. If the women’s initiative is
part of a hosting organization, the mission statements will need to align.
Goals and Objectives

What is going to be accomplished? Who will do it? What are the right goals?
Participants in a women’s philanthropy initiative, whether staff or women
donors, want to accomplish multiple goals: build awareness about an issue,
raise money, create friends and supporters, and impact causes. In 2019, The
Women’s Philanthropy Institute Study Change Agents: The Goals and Impact
of Women’s Foundation and Funds highlighted several findings about the goals
and objectives of women’s foundations and funds.
• Women’s funds share the broad goal of advancing women’s philanthropy.

Their specific objectives and the ways they pursue them vary widely
(Gillespie, 2019).
• Women’s funds define impact in different ways and have been most
successful at achieving short-term goals through empowerment and
community-based change (Gillespie, 2019).
• Women’s funds pursue their organizational goals through multiple grant
making approaches like gender-lens investing and community-based
philanthropy (Gillespie, 2019).
• Many women’s funds go beyond grant making to achieve impact through
relationship-building partnerships and policy advocacy (Gillespie, 2019).
• Women’s funds demonstrate intersectionality in their pursuit of goals and
impact, using different lenses and voices in decision-making (Gillespie,
2019).
Although this study focused exclusively on women’s funds and founda-

tions, there are some unique aspects about the goals and objectives found in
women’s philanthropy that can be considered in the design of an initiative.
Here are some suggestions:
In addition to promoting women’s philanthropy and gender equity, many
successful initiatives focus on teaching children, young women and adults
about philanthropy in general. Short-term, locally focused goals are easier
to measure and provide “early wins” which build momentum and donor
interest. Larger long-term goals require specificity. It’s very difficult to
measure a broad goal like social change. Start small and grow. For example,
when Mary Westbrook launched 5224GOOD, her membership goal was
small. She asked three of her friends to each bring a colleague to the first
meeting. The membership evolved from four to thirty over the course of a
year.
Understand and define where the gender lens fits within your initiative.
This includes: Who is in the population to be served? How are funds going
to be distributed? What type of programs will the donors fund? How will
women donors and program participants be impacted? Who will be potential
partners?
Have a diverse group of women at the table when creating goals and objec-
tives and make sure women are represented in all aspects of the initiative
design. During one of my interviews, a woman executive and philanthropist
(who requested anonymity) shared her experience of reminding others about
a gender lens in their decision-making process. She was the only woman on
the board of a large trade association planning a national sports conference.
114 L. A. Buntz
When the board of the association received word that one of potential finan-
cial sponsors for the conference was a for-profit corporation and magazine
known for its exploitation of women, the conversation centered on the finan-
cial possibilities and how great the financial support would be. She was the
only voice to object, reminding the other board members that women need
to be respected, not exploited. Her gender perspective was honored, the asso-
ciation voted against the sponsorship, and avoided a good deal of negative
public controversy.
Women’s philanthropy initiatives will create change intentionally or unin-
tentionally. What systems will your women’s philanthropy initiative impact
and in what ways? This may include a specific goal about systems change
or awareness that the women’s philanthropy initiative will impact other
organizational systems.
Collaboration and community building are high on the list as some of
the most important activities and goals. Women’s unique ability to connect
to each other and network make these goals a natural part of their work in
philanthropy. Stating these as goals versus outcomes emphasizes their impor-
tance in initiative development and implementation. Identify key partners
who can help support and advance the goals. Oliver Wiand’s delegation of
foci to other community organizations is a great example of collaboration.
Intersectionality is a part of women’s philanthropy. The intersections of
race, culture, gender, class, sexuality, and place play a role in defining people’s
identity, problems, and solutions. When women participate in philanthropy,
design programs or fund causes, they bring their gender and all their experi-
ences to the table. Hearing the perspectives of many kinds of women helps
us grow and learn. A great question that Melinda Gates learned from her
friend, Killian Noe, founder of the Recovery Café is, “What do you know
now in a deeper way than you knew it before? Wisdom isn’t about accumu-
lating more facts, it’s about understanding big truths in a deeper way” (Gates,
2019, p. 27). Assessing how these factors and insights impact decisions and
donor’s lives provides essential insight into the type of women’s philanthropy
initiative that can be developed.
Strategy and Structure

When considering a strategy to implement goals and objectives, remember
how and why women give. Feelings, emotions, empathy, and facts are primary
drivers. Women have a desire to help others. They focus less on the benefits
of being charitable and more on the connection, the feeling they get from
giving. Strategies within women’s philanthropy initiatives need to include

data, structure, and emotion. Here is where the power of a story can inspire
donors to act. We make sense of the world and fashion our identities through
sharing and telling stories. Telling the story of need inspires women to get
engaged. The women’s philanthropy initiative will also create stories and some
of them could be part of its legacy. Ask women to share their stories about
how giving impacted others and themselves.
Women work in social networks and have a tapestry of relationships, some
of them professional, some personal. Often, the lines are blurred. As skilled
networkers, women want connections and more. Bob Little, a marketing
consultant, coined the term “netweavers” which accurately describes how
women connect. Rather than “networking,” which is about “How can you
help me? Can you give me something I need?” Netweaving is about, “How
can I help you?” (Strang, 2011). Taking that question to your donors is a
great foundation for a strategy: How can I help you have impact? Improve
your community? Educate a child? Think of the tapestry of women that you
can weave together to create a powerful network of giving. Another part of
strategy is sharing data that informs women about causes and answers their
questions. Take time to explain the structure of the organization and how it
intersects with the donor’s interests. Women’s philanthropy initiatives can be
structured in many different ways. Think about strategy first and then build
a structure to support it.
Finally, a tip about strategy and structure comes from the principles of a
concept called Human-Centered Design championed by Nobel Prize laureate
Herbert Simon. It distinguishes its approach by an obsessive focus on under-
standing the perspective of the person who experiences the problem and
involves them in creating solutions (DC Design, 2017). This process has been
emphasized in many women’s philanthropy programs and bears repeating.
The five steps to the process include: Empathize: Understand the problem
by immersing yourself in the community affected by your design. Define:
Define the problem by focusing on the key action you want to accom-
plish—asking constantly, why? Ideate: Come up with multiple solutions
remembering that everything is a system. Prototype: Build out a model. Test
and Iterate (DC Design, 2017).
The process is dynamic and cyclical. The reason this process is so powerful
for women’s philanthropy is that it engages the recipients of grants or end-
users in the solution and engages women donors in the design of a program.
It reminds you to constantly ask why, to test out ideas on a small scale, to
improve, and to retest.
116 L. A. Buntz
Metrics
What will you measure and how will you measure it? How will you define
success? Often, philanthropy initiatives default to counting, trying to quan-
tify success through numbers: how much money is raised, how many new
donors? The size of donations, planned gifts, or grants distributed are all
common metrics. Women’s philanthropy initiatives have demonstrated that
their impact is more than money and some of the markers of success aren’t
quantifiable: new relationships, increased awareness, policy development, and
community building.
Money is a metric, but more importantly it is the outcome of good work in
building relationships, earning trust, listening to stories, and finding a donor’s
passion and motivation for giving. Metrics should align with the initiative’s
mission and purpose. If awareness is a major goal, a metric must be assigned
to it. If membership in a giving circle is a metric, “membership” must be
defined. If volunteering is valued, measure how much time women volun-
teer. Think about metrics on two levels: the numbers which are concrete
and measurable, and the relationships. The numbers of relationships can be
counted, and the types described, but their strength, impact, and power are
immeasurable.
Evaluation
Evaluation is a topic that has dominated the philanthropy and foundation
literature in recent years and is under considerable debate. One of the chal-
lenges is that assessing and evaluating success is usually limited to grant
making and the outcome of investments. But, on many levels, evaluations
are about learning and improving. So, what should evaluation include? Who
conducts and participates in the evaluation? What does the evaluation tell
us about the success and impact of a philanthropic endeavor? The results of
the Women’s Philanthropy Institute’s report, Change Agents: The Goals and
Impact of Women’s Foundations and Funds confirm that goals, objectives, and
evaluation need to include grant making, but should not be limited to these
exclusively (Gillespie, 2019).
Evaluation is based on the definition of success or progress. What did the
initiative intend on accomplishing; what were the intended outcomes? In
women’s philanthropy initiatives grant making and fundraising are usually
included in evaluation because these are metrics that can be quantified.
Measuring social impact is more difficult. Two possible measures in the eval-
uation process suggested by Omidyar Network, a philanthropic investment
firm based in California, are reach and engagement. Reach is a measure of
how many individuals are touched by a product or service. Engagement is
the depth of the interaction (Bannick & Hallstein, 2012).
Counting the number of people “touched” by a service or philanthropic
investment is possible if touch is defined. Evaluating the depth of an interac-
tion is trickier. Is it the type or length of the interaction? To evaluate the social
impact, you would need to determine the effect the interaction had on the
donor or program participant. Did the donor get more involved in the cause,
or increase her gift? Did the program recipient’s life improve? As you can see,
it is tricky and difficult to evaluate these initiatives, but necessary. Without
metrics and evaluation, progress can’t be described or support sustained.
One of the most productive evaluation practices women philanthropy
initiatives can engage in is sharing results. Having a shared platform where
all programs can post their learning helps raise all boats, as they say. The
power of the Women’s Funding Network or other umbrella organizations is
that learning is shared through conferences, publications and conversations,
understanding that all programs can benefit from the experiences of others.
Elements of High Impact Nonprofits

Building and assessing women’s philanthropy initiatives is difficult. There
is no one model or one-size-fits-all. Crutchfield and Grant McLeod (2009,
pp. 21–23) have identified six elements of a high-impact nonprofit. As you
read through these characteristics think about women’s philanthropy initia-
tives. Do they share these elements of high impact? Does your organization
model these elements?
• Advocate and Serve—Providing funding for direct services or programs is

always essential, but the most impactful change occurs when funding is
directed at institutional systems or legislative policies. Do both.
• Make markets work—Tapping into the power of self-interest and the laws
of economics is far more effective than appealing to pure altruism. Building
partnerships, influencing business or nonprofit practices, and developing
earned income ventures are good strategies for long-term sustainability.
• Inspire evangelists—Create your tribe of supporters. This group does not
have to be exclusively women. Having diversity helps broaden the message
118 L. A. Buntz
and pool of advocates. (I would suggest that diversity is essential and

necessary in your tribe.)
• Nurture nonprofit networks—Help your peers succeed. Women are great
at helping other women. Building coalitions, sharing information, talent,
and expertise can help your program and advance the larger field of
philanthropy.
• Master adaptation—Programs that survive are adaptable. They may not be
the biggest or fundraise the most money. They listen to feedback, modify
plans, reflect and evaluate, developing a cycle of learning.
• Share leadership—Successful programs distribute authority, develop
succession planning in staff, committees, and boards. They have engaged
and powerful boards that invest in the program.
Bibliography
Bannick, M., & Hallstein, E. (2012, Summer). Learning from Silicon Valley
Advancing Evaluation in Practices in Philanthropy. Stanford Social Innovation
Supplement.
Brinkerhoff, P. (2009). Mission-based management (3rd ed., pp. 8–10). Wiley.
Crutchfield, L., & Grant McLeod, H. (2009). Forces for good . Jossey-Bass.
Dartmouth College. (2018). Retrieved June 12, 2021, from http://www.
dartmouthcentennialcircle.com/about/
DC Design. (2017, August 14). What is human-centered design? Retrieved
February 17, 2020, from http://medium.com/dc-design/what-is-human-
centered-design-6711c09e2779
Gates, M. (2019). The moment of lift. Flatiron Books.
Gillespie, E. (2019). Change agents: The goals and impact of women’s foundations and
funds Women’s Philanthropy Institute, 6(5), 5.
Ibarra, H., & Obodaru, O. (2009, January). Women and the vision thing. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https://hbr.org/2009/01/
women-and-the-vision-thing
Inside Higher Ed. (2018, April 27). Alumnae establish ambitious goal: $1
million each from 100 women. Dartmouth News. Retrieved October 2, 2020,
from https://news.dartmouth.edu/news/2018/alumnae-establish-ambitious-goal-
1-million-each-100-women
Iowa Women’s Foundation. (2015). She matters: We listen and Iowa wins.
Simon, S. J. (2012, June 23). Growing up: The five life stages of non-profit organi-
zations. The Free Library.com. International Association of Policy Governance
Conference. Retrieved May 31, 2020, from https://docplayer.et/21190196-
Growing-up-the-five-life-stages-of-non-profit-organizations.html
Strang, L. (2011). Hate networking? Try netweaving. Late Blooming Entrepreneurs.

Last modified October 10, 2011, from https://latebloomingentrepreneurs.word
press.com/2011/10/10/hate-networking-try-%E2%80%9Cnetweaving%E2%
80%9D/
Valburn, M. (2018). New era for women as donors. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
February 9, 2020, from https://www.insidehighered.com.news/2018/05/11/
colleges-are-turning-women-philanthropists-source-new-money-fund-raising-
campaigns
9
Action: The ASK
When philanthropy professionals think about asking a donor for a contribu-

tion or gift, it is easy to get caught up in the process, preparation, and anxiety
of the interaction. A well-prepared plan usually ensures better results, but it’s
even more important to remember that “an ask” is about creating a joyful
and memorable experience, generating happiness and ideally connecting the
donor to something self-fulfilling, meaningful, and purposeful. Perhaps you
have experienced yourself the feeling of satisfaction that accompanies an
inspirational and transformative gift, or perhaps you have seen the joy or
tears that sometimes envelop a donor when she makes a heartfelt gift. Don’t
we want as many donors as possible to feel that sense of joy and fulfillment?
As fundraisers prepare “to ask” women donors, it is helpful to understand
the context of the philanthropic arena, who is giving, and what social and
economic conditions impact giving.
The Changing State of Philanthropy

In the first chapter we explored the current unprecedented wealth capacity
of women and how it will grow in the next decade. As fundraisers think
about crafting an ask, it is helpful to reflect on current shifting philanthropic
patterns and how these conditions impact the mindset of donors, specifically
women. Each year numerous national philanthropy groups analyze emerging
patterns of charitable giving. Here are a few of the latest statistics:

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_9
122 L. A. Buntz
• According to a Chronicle of Philanthropy analysis of Internal Revenue

Service data, only 24% of taxpayers reported on their tax returns donating
to charity in 2015. That’s down from 2000–2006 when that figure was
routinely 30 or 31%. (Lindsay, 2017).
• Target Analytics found that the median number of small donors has
climbed only once in 14 years, since 2002. From 2005 to 2015, the figure
sagged 25% (Lindsay, 2017).
In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which altered the
charitable giving landscape for individuals who give philanthropically. Several
studies indicate that the number of households itemizing deductions dropped
from 45 million in 2016 to approximately 16–20 million in 2018 (Frank,
2019). Meanwhile, the wealth of the Forbes 400 has increased by 2000%
since 1984 (Callahan, 2017). In 2018, while giving from larger donors
increased, total giving was down by 1.7% when adjusted for inflation (Giving
USA, 2019). The following year (2019) total charitable giving rose 4.2%
driven by an increase in giving from individuals (Giving USA, 2020). 2020
was the highest year of charitable giving on record, a 5.1% increase over
2019, boosted by the stock market, generous individuals, and foundations
(Giving USA, 2021).
How the COVID-19 pandemic will impact giving over a long period of
time is still an unanswered question. Currently, coronavirus giving tops $1
billion worldwide, exceeding giving during previous disasters (Parks, 2020).
So, what’s happening? If there is more wealth, are people giving less, are
fewer people giving, or are the givers concentrated in the High Net Worth
(HNW) category? Where are the women in these changing tides? Part of the
answer is that in the philanthropic world, fundraisers are spending more time
working with HNW donors and minimizing their time and effort soliciting
donors who give smaller amounts.
Additionally, the number of small donors has been declining for two
decades. Between 2000 and 2016 the percentage of households giving to
charity declined from 66 to 53% (Collins & Flannery, 2020). This trend
has caught the attention of the Gates Foundation. Their belief is that large
funders can help expand the quantity and quality of giving. “We want to
double everyday givers. They are the closet to the needs in the community,”
Bill Gates commented (Hall, 2021). This includes increasing contributions
from a diverse group of donors, using more digital tools that can engage a
wider range of prospects, promoting events like Giving Tuesday and part-
nering with IDEO, an international consulting firm creating innovative ways
to make giving easier for modest donors to find worthwhile causes.
Women donors are everyday donors and high net worth donors. Their
interests and ability to give are growing in range and scope. Dr. Una Osili,
Associate Dean for Research and International Programs and Professor of
Economics and Philanthropic Studies at Indiana University’s Lilly Family
School of Philanthropy predicts that as more women and people of color
penetrate leadership positions, they will impact not only the economy, but the
future of giving (Yang & Taylor, 2019). This could help increase the number
of modest donors and women donors in general.
The philanthropic community will need to adjust to these changes and it
may take some time. Fundraisers need to constantly assess the changing envi-
ronment considering the impact on donors. Women’s philanthropy initiatives
need to be inclusive of all types of donors and levels of gifts. Understanding,
practicing, and implementing effective “asks” of a broad spectrum of women
donors is more essential than ever.
The Goal—Purpose and Money

Making an ask of a woman donor has three primary goals: to create a memo-
rable experience for the donor, one in which she feels supremely happy about
her contribution in the short and long term; to match her gift with her
life’s purpose; and to obtain a contribution that aligns with her passion and
purpose while helping advance your cause.
The size of the gift is not the only factor in a successful ask. One donor
may give a really large gift having capacity to do that and more, while another
may give a small gift, but one that represents a larger percentage of her depos-
able income. Both can be meaningful. Christian Smith and Hilary Davidson,
sociologists at the University of Notre Dame, and authors of The Paradox of
Generosity concluded that “people who are generous with their money or their
time or generous with their relatives or neighbors on a regular basis tended to
be happier and healthier” (Arent, 2014). The positive psychological returns
from giving may explain one of the reasons initial modest philanthropy can
snowball into something much bigger.
And it’s not just giving that makes us feel good. Twenty years ago, Allan
Luks, a community action lawyer and Executive Director of Big Brothers Big
Sisters in New York City, introduced the first concept of the “helper’s high”
when he studied more than 3,000 male and female volunteers and concluded
that regular helpers are 10 times more likely to be in good health than people
who don’t volunteer (Luks & Payne, 2001).
124 L. A. Buntz
Yet, happiness and good health are not the same as purpose. Many people
feel happy with their daily life, their jobs, family, leisure activities, and friends,
but don’t have a sense of purpose or answers to the abiding questions, Who
am I? What am I doing here? Where am I going? Purpose provides the answer
to these questions in an underlying sense of peace and fulfillment that tran-
scends the everyday highs and lows, disappointments, successes, loves, and
losses. Steve Taylor a senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Beckett University
in the U.K. commented, “When you’re living in accordance with your life’s
purpose you view the challenges and opportunities of life as part of what you
encounter along the road. They don’t distract you from that larger vision,
your ideal, which is like a magnet steadily pulling you toward it” (Taylor,
2013).
Your job as a fundraiser is to help each donor find her special purpose
because it will stay with the donor forever, inspiring her to give again. And, if
the donor walks away from your ask feeling good about herself and a cause,
you have achieved a major step in building a relationship—not just creating
a potential long-term donor—because joyfulness is contagious. Her positive
experience will inspire others because she will tell others about it.
The Process—Preparation and Planning

Preparing to make a request for a charitable contribution or investment is the
culmination of a process. Depending on the size and type of the request, the
process can take weeks, months, or even years. It’s based on a relationship
that has been growing and nurtured by the fundraiser and the donor. Stories
have been shared over lunches, dinners, coffees, or zoom meetings. There
have been short and long exchanges through emails, notes and letters, and
personal interactions. Most importantly, there has been learning and caring
for each other and the cause before the eventual request. Still, even the most
experienced fundraisers feel some anxiety and apprehension before making
an ask.
The preparation phase is the pre-planning for an ask. It’s about strategy
and intent. Most visits rarely transpire exactly as we envision them, but prepa-
ration can minimize surprises and ensure a smoother, and more productive
interaction.
In previous chapters we explored the process of learning about your donor’s
source of wealth, her giving history, and connections with the community.
Before any major ask, it is imperative that you do that homework. Does she
have the ability to make a gift? What is her giving history? What actions has
she demonstrated that lead you to believe she will make a contribution when
asked? Do you believe the donor can do more? When would be the right time
to ask for a gift?
Define if the ask will be of an individual, a couple, or a family. If the audi-
ence is multiple people, having some insight into the relationship dynamics
will be critical. Are all the right family members in the room? Watching inter-
actions and assessing donors’ behaviors in different circumstances is one of
the reasons fundraisers have multiple meetings or interactions with donors
before they make an ask.
Women are experts at relationships; they define their lives and worlds
by their connections to others. Think about the connection you have to
the woman donor. Is it professional, personal, built on shared experiences
or acquaintances? Does it involve trust and respect? Is it casual or formal?
Remember, you can be a mentor and guide in her philanthropic journey.
Cheryle Mitvalsky is the former Vice President of the Kirkwood Commu-
nity College Foundation and a stellar fundraiser. She shared these thoughts
about working with women donors. “You have to friend-raise before you
can fundraise; it’s building a genuine friendship, a genuine trust. And when
it’s there, when you really value them as an individual and you respect
them, whether they give you a gift or not, that’s the magic of relationships”
(Mitvalsky, personal communication, September 28, 2017).
Recording and reviewing your experiences with a donor is helpful and
insightful. Review the notes of past meetings considering what have been
the most effective types of interactions with the donor. Does she like to have
lots of facts, stories, or data about what other donors are doing? What do you
think would be the most inspiring approach? Is there someone else—another
fundraiser or donor—who should be part of the conversation? Often it can
be effective to have a trusted friend or colleague of the donor join in the ask,
but it is imperative that any participant in the meeting make a commitment
and contribution prior to the ask. The golden rule for volunteers who solicit
is that they have to be a donor themselves.
You have built awareness about an issue or cause, piquing the donor’s
interest, and she has responded with increased interactions or inquiries.
Knowing her history or personal story has enabled you as the fundraiser to
know how she is connected to this project. As you prepare, think about what
might prevent her from responding, what might her objections or concerns
be? Why wouldn’t she participate? Anticipate these questions or concerns, and
have your responses ready.
126 L. A. Buntz
After assessing any objections the donor may have, think about how to
present the opportunity as a positive and fulfilling experience. Think strategi-
cally about setting up the visit. If you want the donor to consider supporting
a program or cause, what would be the most compelling way to reach her
based on your previous encounters? How do you want to package this part
of the ask? Do you want to bring documents, pictures, stories, charts, and
graphs? Perhaps she needs a personal tour of a program or to meet a recipient
of services.
Know what you will ask, including the amount, but remember, this is a
negotiation. Do you want a one-time gift? A multi-year pledge? Is this an
annual gift or part of a larger fundraising campaign? Is there an opportu-
nity to name a building or program? You may bring a range of gift amounts,
examples of other donors giving similar size gifts, or share the names of
friends and colleagues who have also made a gift (with their permission.)
Have several options available. As you discuss these with a donor, take her
lead. What interests her, what questions does she have, and how can you
create an opportunity?
Think through the options for giving. For some donors it’s cash, for others,
appreciated stock, a planned gift, or a charitable remainder trust. Remember
that most donors giving substantial amounts have their own tax and legal
representatives, so be prepared to work with their personal advisors on the
mechanics of how the gift will be made. It’s always helpful to determine ahead
of time if there are any parameters that you need to consider as you negotiate
with a donor. What is acceptable or unacceptable as a gift or contribution?
The Meeting—Setting, Story, Words

Now that the preparation phase is complete, it’s time to set up a meeting.
Facts and data, outcomes, results, and supportive documentation are all
helpful, but the personal connection and narrative is what will sell the
concept or cause to the donor. The meeting should never be a surprise.
Donors who have been engaged and invested will expect a financial request
at some point in time.
Whenever possible, make the ask in a face-to-face communication.
Women tend to rely heavily on facial expressions, including head nodding
and eye contact or “paralanguage,” the pitch and speed of speaking, hesita-
tion, and gestures, the “mhm” or “ah.” All are indications that convey she is
listening (Point Park University Online, 2021). Arranging a personal meeting
allows the fundraiser to watch all forms of the donor’s nonverbal communi-
cation including how close she sits to someone, how often and in what way
she touches others, her gestures when asking questions, her posture and facial
expressions of joy, sadness, confusion, or agreement. Women are very obser-
vant of others’ behaviors and are better at reading nonverbal clues. Always stay
attuned to the congruence of the words and expressions. If a donor says she’s
interested in a project, but her nonverbal expressions indicate boredom, or a
desire to end the meeting, pay more attention to the body language. In the era
of COVID, many donor meetings are occurring via zoom. This has proven
to be a successful alternative to face-to-face. Seek out the best technology
available to ensure a good visual and audio connection.
Asking women for a contribution can occur in multiple settings. Smaller
gifts can certainly be accomplished in a group setting, but for a very personal
or substantial ask, the donor and fundraiser need privacy. The intimacy of the
setting, the quietness of the conversation, and the somber, yet hopeful tone
of the ask convey the importance and seriousness of the task.
Stories engage the donor in the real work of the cause, allowing her to
envision herself helping, advising, or funding the work. McCrea and Walker
(2013) authors of The Generosity Network, describe the process “When the
prospective partners see themselves as a vital part of the compelling story,
they can envision a future where they are partners with your organization.”
They go on to explain, citing Marshall Ganz’s work on public narra-
tives, that a story has three parts: the story of self—how the donor is
involved—making it deeply personal; the story of us—the connection to the
organization; and the story of now (Ganz, 2011). As a professional fundraiser,
I would change now to—the story of the future. How will the world be
different because of her gift?
There are multiple ways to ask for a gift, but a direct conversation usually
works best. When a donor agrees to a meeting with you, she knows its
purpose, and the fact that she has agreed to a meeting is a very good sign. At
the very least she is interested, if not (yet) considering a contribution. Always
start with the donor’s name, establishing a direct connection, and reminding
her that she is unique and special. If you are working with a couple, make
sure to address both by name. Social conversation at the start of the meeting
is a good way to break the ice. Let the donor(s) take the lead on how much
time is spent catching up on life and current events.
After a brief review of the cause including some updated milestones,
successes, stories and accomplishments, the fundraiser needs to ask the donor
how she would like to be involved. If she responds with some set ideas,
128 L. A. Buntz
explore them, weaving them into your ask. Finally, you need to interject what
you would like the donor to do.
Instead of saying “Would you consider?” say “We would like you to
consider a $100k gift to fund project X.” Or, “We would like you to consider
a gift in the range of x to x.” The drawback of offering a range option is
that the donor may select the lower range so you miss the opportunity for a
larger gift. But, the range option is useful when you are a bit unsure about
the level of a donor’s interest or ability. The question helps test out both of
those factors.
Some other possible comments related to the ask are: “I hope we can work
on this together,” conveying a partnership and commitment on your part.
Or use excitement: “I am so thrilled that we can make this happen together.”
“I’d be honored to work with you.” “I can’t wait to see the future.” “You can
make a difference with your gift.” Using these phrases communicates a desire
to build relationships, connections and equality, in the ways that women talk
to others (McCrea & Walker, 2013).
Then, be silent and wait and wait and wait. Watch for nonverbal cues
that the donor is interested, confused, hopeful, or excited. Try not to fill the
space with your own words. Try not to anticipate what the donor may be
thinking. Let her make the next move. Don’t apologize, don’t rush, and don’t
be discouraged if she says she needs to think about it. If that is the response,
try to arrange a specific time to follow up. If the answer is no, ask if she is
open to consider a gift in the future. Always ask for something: time, follow-
up, and commitments.
If the donor makes a commitment for a gift, share your thanks and appre-
ciation immediately! Ask how she would like to be informed about how the
gift is used or about progress on a project. Ask what type of communication
she would like to have in the future.
A friend and colleague, Kate, relayed this story about her response to an
ask for a substantial gift. As a former United Way volunteer campaign chair,
Kate knew a lot about United Way’s programs. A United Way CEO and
Vice President for Resource Development asked Kate and her husband for a
meeting to discuss a major contribution to a new project. She and Dick are
regular contributors to many nonprofit causes in education, arts, healthcare,
theater, and social services. The CEO knew that Kate, a former teacher, had
an interest in education for high-risk children. United Way’s new project’s
mission was designed to work with high-risk children and their parents,
providing support and education during the child’s first five years of develop-
ment. The discussion focused on how the program would work, the partners
that would be involved, and what were the expected outcomes. The askers
anticipated that Kate would want facts and outcomes. Her questions were
answered. She was reassured by the documentation and thoughtfulness of the
process. The positive response from her husband when he understood the
project was further confirmation that they would make a gift. “I watched my
husband have an “A-ha” moment and I knew then we would give a larger gift
than we originally planned,” she recalled. “All the boxes were checked: it was
a charity we supported, a program with huge potential to reach underserved
children, we were philanthropic donors in the community, and we could
model giving to others” (Minette, personal communication, December 11,
2018).
Thanks and Stewardship

Following an ask, it is essential to follow up with a written note of thanks
within 24–48 hours. The note is your opportunity to say thank you for taking
time for the meeting and to clarify any decisions that were made. A letter
is the best form of documentation and thanks. Texts and email while effi-
cient are less personal. Perhaps there is paper work to complete or a donor
needs additional information. Personalize the follow-up communication as
much as possible, integrating unique events or interactions with the donor, or
sharing reflections of the meeting. After one very successful luncheon meeting
with a donor who had made a large six-figure contribution, my follow-up
letter contained a humorous introductory sentence (suggested by a colleague.)
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Knowing your donor well enough
to compliment, tease, or humor her makes the ask a personal connection.
Your follow-up letter should include information about next steps, clarifica-
tion about follow-up documentation, or confirmation needed to complete the
commitment. Finally, invite the donor to the next event or activity connected
to the cause she is supporting and begin to think about additional ways to
thank and steward her.
The Debrief
What worked and didn’t work during the ask? Following these intense and
complicated donor meetings, it’s a good idea to debrief with other fundraisers
or colleagues. Perhaps you came back cheering about a great success. Reflect
on what was effective and why. Perhaps you come back deflated by a rejection.
130 L. A. Buntz
Reflect with colleagues about what could have been done differently and how
to follow up with the donor.
Several years ago, I had the opportunity to ask a couple for a very large
gift to our United Way endowment. I had known this couple for many
years as loyal United Way supporters and leaders in our Alexis de Tocqueville
Society—donors who give a minimum of $10,000 annually. I had broached
the topic of giving a gift to our endowment several times in previous meet-
ings and had shared some of the details of how their gift could allow them
to endow their annual campaign pledge. They had never fully committed to
make a contribution, but I knew there was interest and capacity. I needed to
ask them directly if they would do it.
They spend their winters in Florida and had hosted United Way events
at their home, always being generous, gracious hosts. I asked if they would
have lunch with me during an upcoming visit to Florida and they agreed.
Although I had other staff with me, I knew I had to take this meeting alone.
The couple makes their philanthropic decisions together so it was imperative
that both of them attend. On a sunny afternoon we dined on a patio shaded
by palm trees and flowers. I shared with them the success that our United
Way had achieved, but more importantly the need for legacy gifts to sustain
our programs in the future.
This couple supports educational opportunities for children and our
United Way had made a big investment in this area. Knowing them and how
they make decisions, it was essential that I emphasize the successful programs
that they supported, as well as the financial benefits of a new endowment.
They have a multi-generational family business and take a long-term view of
their investments in the community. An endowment request seemed like the
right ask. I had come prepared for lots of questions or reasons they might not
agree to my request.
Reminding them of our previous conversations about this topic, I finally
got to the specific ask of a substantial six-figure gift and explained the reasons
this would be a good long-term investment. I emphasized that their leader-
ship would influence other donors, leading the way for future gifts to help
children. Fortunately, they had also prepared for the meeting and clarified
how the gift would be given including the timing of it. After a few moments
and glances at each other, they finally said, “Yes!” The joy, excitement, and
gratitude that I felt was matched by the smiles on their faces and a sincere
hug of appreciation at the end of the lunch.
During the debrief with my colleagues I reviewed my history with these
donors, the multiple meetings that had occurred and explained their style of
giving. This couple wanted data, results, and a projected financial impact of
their gift. I was very conscious to always include both husband and wife in my
conversations and to come prepared with stories and information. This gift
was especially attractive to them because it was a new opportunity to give to
our Foundation and they would be recognized as giving one of United Way’s
largest gifts. It took more than a year to secure this gift, but each meeting
brought us one step closer to a great outcome and a successful ask.
Bibliography
Arent, W. A. (2014). If giving makes people happy, authors ask, why not give
more? University of Notre Dame, College of Arts and Science. Retrieved May
21, 2020, from https://generosityresearch.nd.edu/news/if-giving-makes-people-
happy-authors-ask-why-not-give-more/
Callahan, D. (2017). The givers (p. 17). Alfred A. Knopf.
Collins, C., & Flannery, H. (2020). Gilded giving 2020: How wealth inequality
distorts philanthropy and imperils democracy (p. 2). Institute for Policy Studies.
Frank, R. (2019, June 18). Charitable giving dropped last year in the wake of the new
tax law. Retrieved July 6, 2020, from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/charit
able-giving-dropped-last-year-in-the-wake-of-the-new-tax-law.html
Ganz, M. (2011). Public narrative, collective action, and power. In S. Odugdemi,
T. Lee (Eds.), Accountability through public opinion: From inertia to public action
(pp. 273–289). Washington World Bank.
Giving USA. (2019). Retrieved January 25, 2020, from https://givingusa.org/giv
ing-usa-2019-americans-gave-427-71-billion-to-charity-in-2018-amid-complex-
year-for-chartiable-giving/
Giving USA. (2020). Retrieved November 24, 2020, from https://givingusa.org/
giving-usa-2020-charitable-giving-showed-solid-growth-climbing-to-449-64-bil
lion-in-2019-one-of-the-highest-years-for-giving-on-record/
Giving USA. (2021). Retrieved December 21, 2021, from https://philanthropynet
work.org/news/giving-usa-2021-year-unprecedented-events-and-challenges-charit
able-giving-reached-record-47144
Hall, H. (2021). How Bill and Melinda Gates seek to reverse declines
in the ranks of small donors. Inside Philanthropy. Retrieved March 4,
2021, from https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2021/3/4/billionaire-cou
ple-seeks-to-reverse-declines-in-the-ranks-of-low-dollar-donors
Lindsay, D. (2017, October 3). How America gives special report: Breaking the
charity habit. Chronicle of Philanthropy, p. 2.
Luks, A., & Payne, P. (2001). The healing power of doing good: The health and
spiritual benefits of helping others (p. 361). iUniverse.com Inc. digital version.
McCrea, J., & Walker, J. (2013). The generosity network (p. 183). Deepak Chopra
Books
132 L. A. Buntz
Parks, D. (2020, March 5). Coronavirus giving tops $1 Billion. Chronicle of Philan-
thropy. Retrieved September 3, 2020, from https://philanthropy.com/article/cor
onavirus-giving-tops-1-billion-worldwide
Point Park University Online. (2021). Gendered communications: Differences in
Communication styles. Retrieved January 7, 2021, from https://online.pointp
ark.edu/public-relations-and-advertising/gender-differences-communication-sty
les/
Taylor, S. (2013, July 21). The power of purpose. Psychology Today. Retrieved April
15, 2019, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-of-the-darkness/
201307/the-power-purpose
Yang, C., & Taylor, W. (2019). Gender and future of charitable giving. Ms. Maga-
zine. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://msmagazine.com/2019/06/27/gen
der-and-the-future-of-charitable-giving/
10
Acknowledgment: Myths, Mystery
and Magic
Offering gratitude for a donor’s gift of wealth, wisdom, or work is one of

the best parts of a fundraiser’s job. As the fifth step in our six-step process
to engage and work with women donors, it is imperative to think about
acknowledgment as an ongoing and continuous activity, ebbing and flowing
depending on the donor, gift, fundraiser, and cause. Thanking people and
demonstrating gratitude is an expression of good social graces, but more
importantly it connects the giver and receiver in a special bond. Yet, the
type, amount, timing, frequency, choice, and enactment of a thank you or
acknowledgment are still a bit of a mystery. The type of thank you that
appeals to one donor may not work for another. We are learning more
everyday about this process, especially as it relates to women donors.
Creating a Donor Relations and Stewardship Plan is unique to every
fundraising department and organization. Donor relations are usually
described as donor-based activities that seek to deliver the message of the
organization to prospective philanthropists in order to attract and sustain
their contributions; it’s the overall plan that fundraisers and organizational
leadership develop to guide their work (Kaufhold, 2017).
Stewardship is a process within the donor relations plan. Defined most
frequently as “gift-centered activities” occurring after a donor has given
a contribution, stewardship consists of communicating and nurturing
the relationship with the donor including acknowledgment and apprecia-
tion, thanking donors, and ensuring compliance with the donor’s intent
(Kaufhold, 2017). It’s about building trust between the donor and the

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_10
134 L. A. Buntz
fundraiser or the donor and the nonprofit organization. A trusted rule says
that for every time you ask a donor for a gift, you should contact them two
other times without asking for money (Grace, 2005, p. 146). The important
point is that stewardship and donor relations are not the same. Fundraisers
need to think about stewardship before they ask for the gift and have a plan
for how to provide it.
The Purpose of Acknowledgment

There are countless reasons to thank donors, but most programs focus on
four primary goals.
1. Gift receipt—Sending an acknowledgment documents the gift for the

organization and the donor. A written acknowledgment usually includes
verification of the nonprofit’s tax exempt status, the amount and date of
the contribution, and any conditions associated with the gift. Nonprofits
are required to send tax documentation for charitable gifts. Most often
nonprofits send gift receipts for donations of $250.00 or more.
2. Making the donor feel appreciated—Saying thank you is just good busi-
ness. You want to make the donor feel valued and appreciated as quickly
as possible. If you can surprise them, wow them, honor them, or make
your thank you unique, it will be remembered long after it was received.
Most nonprofits establish a guideline of thanking donors within a specific
period of time, ideally 24–48 hours after receiving a contribution.
3. Improving the possibility of generating another gift, or an increased gift,
next time the donor contributes. Once a donor has given a gift, the like-
lihood of a repeat gift increases with an acknowledgment. Considering
that retention rates are not very high for first-time donors, with esti-
mates as low as 20% and only 45.5% for overall donor retention, every
acknowledgment is important (Bloomerang, 2021; Levis et al., 2018).
4. Improving the quality of the relationship. Fundraisers need to show and
communicate their gratitude and appreciation for the donor’s gift to build
on the relationship that has been established. If donors feel positive and
engaged in a relationship, the probability of creating a loyal and long-term
donor increases (Shang et al., 2018).
Two barriers prevent many programs from being successful in their stew-
ardship efforts: lack of data and continuity of staff. Investing in good data
systems and having experts who can analyze and interpret the results is a
substantial financial investment. Without good data, we make guesses about

donors, what they want, how they give, what they care about, and what
are their preferred giving methods. A lack of data makes it difficult to track
the impact of a donor’s investment and provide meaningful reports. As a
result, we design acknowledgment programs around what professionals think
donors want and what we think works.
Penelope Burke is a well-known expert in donor research and steward-
ship. In her first book, Donor Centered Fundraising , she identifies three things
donors want to know after they give a gift.
• That it was received and you were pleased with it

• That the gift was set to work
• That the project or program to which the gift was directed is having or had
the desired effect (Burke, 2008, p. 31).
Burke explains that thanking donors and letting them know how their gift
is going to be used can be accomplished fairly easily through a wide variety of
communications. But information about the impact of the gift is more diffi-
cult as it usually needs to occur over a period of time. Fundraisers will need to
partner with other organizational staff to collect data and stories illustrating
the importance and effect of such gifts. Take the time to identify how your
donor wants to receive ongoing information—what type, how often, and in
what format. If there is an opportunity to see the gift “in action,” invite the
donor onsite to provide a visual and more memorable experience.
The process of ongoing communication with donors leads us to the
second barrier, staff continuity. Relationships take time to grow and develop.
Turnover rates in the field of fundraising have always been an industry
problem. According to a Harris Poll study conducted by the Chron-
icle of Philanthropy and Association of Fundraising Professionals, 51% of
fundraising professionals in Canada and the U.S. say they plan to leave their
jobs within the next two years and 30% say they plan to leave the profession
all together by 2021 (Joselyn, 2019). This lack of continuity of staff inhibits
the possibility of good stewardship.
When K. Sujata, the former president of the Chicago Foundation for
Women, arrived at the foundation, she quickly discovered that stewardship
had been a challenge for the organization. Women donors were unhappy that
there had been a high rate of turnover among the fundraising staff and she
had to work very hard to rebuild trust. Sujata made a special effort to meet
with women donors, listen to their concerns and share information about the
136 L. A. Buntz
work of the foundation. When she retired in 2019, after leading the founda-
tion for eight years, she received a lovely note from a donor commenting on
how the stewardship of donors had changed because she had been a consistent
and trusted voice.
Anecdotes like this and experience observing fundraising programs for
many years indicate that the most successful programs have consistency in
leadership staff, continuity in their practices and long-standing relationships
with donors. So how do we work with women donors to create the best and
most successful stewardship programs and find the best magic and mystery
of thankfulness?
Myth—Women Want What Men Want

One of the myths about donor recognition is that one-size-fits-all, or at least
that is how many fundraisers operate. Driven by the need for efficiency and
effectiveness, they default to standard thank you templates, mass emails, ads
in the newspaper, or social media posts. While these practices might include
slight modifications for the age of the donor, size of the gift or other personal
factors, currently there seems to be very little difference in stewarding men
and women.
Men expect to be acknowledged and thanked, but may tend to view their
contributions as transactions. Often, they operate in a reciprocal relationship
with other donors.
Or, as a woman donor explained, “My husband picks up the phone, calls
a few of his friends, asks them to contribute to his charity and then he will
return the favor.” Their Return on Investment (ROI) tends to focus more
on organizational results and what was accomplished rather than nurturing
ongoing relationships. Women and men differ in the ways they like and
want to be recognized. Acknowledging a woman donor and letting her know
that you appreciate her contribution needs to be unique and special to her.
Women want more than a mere “thank you.” They want an experience, a
connection, and an opportunity to use their philanthropy as an extension
of their interests. Some want to grow their professional network, others
want to engage their family members or friends, access career opportunities,
or continue to learn about causes. This extended acknowledgment plan is
another way to continue the relationship with the donor long after the gift
has been received.
Connection
Beth Mann, Vice President of Institutional Advancement at the Jewish Feder-
ation of North America shares these thoughts, “Men give based on who’s
asking. Women give based on who’s receiving” (Stiffman, 2015). Many
women give to a cause because they have a personal connection with it
or have experienced an emotional reaction to the proposed need and have
been effectively asked for a gift. It’s about touching, feeling, seeing, and
experiencing impact. When a donor makes a gift, she begins to establish
a relationship with the fundraiser, the organization, and the cause. She is
looking for meaning and community. How that relationship is managed,
maintained, and nurtured is dependent on the fundraiser. As explained in
Chapter 6, making a gift that is purely transactional doesn’t usually fuel a
donor’s mind and spirit.
One of the best ways to thank a donor is to do it through a personal
interaction—a luncheon meeting, a phone call, a zoom call, or a visit to her
home. These are opportunities to say thank you and explore additional ways
the donor can stay engaged, including volunteering, leading a committee,
participating in grant making decisions, or serving on the board. Asking a
woman to increase her engagement lets her know that she is valued for all of
her talents, not just her money, and expands her connections to the cause.
Donors will tell you if this is an opportunity they want to pursue. Having
the recipient of a donor’s gift send a thank you note or letter about how it
impacted their life is another way to build a personal connection.
Shared Interests
Pay attention to the hobbies and interests of your women donors. For
example, a donor may like art exhibits, gardening, music, or educational
research. Use that information when you communicate acknowledging her
gifts. You can create and nurture a relationship with her by sharing her inter-
ests, or at the very least, being able to have enlightening and entertaining
conversations with her. A donor who loves music may enjoy an invitation to
a special concert. A board member, and donor to a health-related cause would
feel honored to have access to a special lecture on a medical topic. Messages
from recipients of the donor’s gift are especially meaningful: cards from chil-
dren at a camp that a donor supported or pictures from an expressive arts
program, for example.
138 L. A. Buntz
Engaging Family and Friends

Many women want to get their friends or family involved in their philan-
thropy. A fundraiser may not consider this a part of “thanking a donor,” but
remember, women love to connect with others and to share their passion.
Additionally, encouraging women to bring a friend or their children to an
event or program broadens the circle of potential supporters. A fundraiser
can offer special praise and public recognition in the presence of family and
friends, and it provides a group thanks to the donor. Consider for example
Kathy Eno, a volunteer fundraiser, former teacher, board member, and ardent
supporter of many nonprofit causes.
She and her husband, Rex, have contributed millions of dollars to univer-
sities, social service agencies, healthcare organizations, and United Way. Eno’s
philanthropy is a combination of volunteering and giving. Over the years she
has donated countless hours to boards, committees, and capital campaigns.
As her children were growing up, Eno was very engaged in volunteering
and philanthropy, which sometimes caused tension. Her daughter, Lindsay,
admitted feeling a bit jealous and irritated that her mother was gone so much
of the time, until she was asked to accompany her mother to a nonprofit event
where Kathy was going to be speaking about community causes and the need
for philanthropy. As Lindsay watched her mother articulate the needs for a
women’s shelter and explain how women could get engaged in giving, she
saw her mother in a new light. In addition to feeling proud, she was inspired.
The frustration with her mother’s absences dissipated. Her mom was doing
something important, critical, and helpful to many women in the community
who didn’t have the resources Lindsay and her family had. The organization
that provided the opportunity for Eno to share her story in the presence of
her daughter and offer some public praise, thanked her in a unique and
memorable manner.
Eno and her daughter have since talked a lot about philanthropy and today
Lindsay is following in her mother’s footsteps. In addition to her children’s
school, she has identified several healthcare causes that she supports. Eno has
also inspired her son Ben to get engaged in the American Diabetes Associ-
ation and Juvenile Diabetes. He and his father share the disease and giving
back through volunteerism and donations is their contribution to research
and treatment. Kathy’s actions continue to connect her husband, children and
grandchildren to philanthropy, a gift that will keep on giving for generations.
Information and Results

As discussed in previous chapters, women are information seekers. They
investigate causes before they contribute, ask questions, seek advice, and want
to be educated. When it comes to being thanked for their contributions,
women want to know the impact of their gift, especially how it relates to
their personal connection.
Several years ago, a researcher at the University of Tennessee conducted
a study of the impact different types of “thanking” had on future giving
by female donors to breast cancer research. The types of thanking methods
were (a) computer-generated letters, (b) voice mail, (c) handwritten notes,
(d) phone call or (e) personal visit. The study showed that while none of the
methods lead to a financial increase in repeat gifts, thanking methods that
allowed for two-way communication between the donor and fundraiser—
phone conversations and personal visits—resulted in a statistically significant
increase in the number of donors making repeat gifts one year later (Kleopfer,
2003).
Secondly, the study compared female breast cancer patients who received a
solicitation letter for breast cancer research to a group who received the letter
and additional information about clinical trials highlighting the impact of
philanthropic dollars on breast cancer research. The clinical trial information
alone did not result in the likelihood that a woman would make a gift, but
it did impact the gift amount, increasing the average donation by $50.00
(Kleopfer, 2003). Women want to know their gift is working.
Opportunity
Give women an opportunity to grow, to expand their network, and to lead.
When women’s foundations and funds were developed in the 1990s among
the organizational objectives were to teach philanthropy to younger women
and to help all women grow on personal and professional levels. When
designing acknowledgment programs, think about how to help your donor
grow. What new opportunities may she be interested in and how can you
facilitate her connections?
One question all fundraisers should ask women when they recruit them as
volunteers and donors is, “What would you like to get out of this experience?
What would you like to learn?” It’s about giving the woman donor something
back that she will treasure for the rest of her life.
140 L. A. Buntz
Mary Lynn Myers grew up in South Dakota observing her family prac-
ticing philanthropy primarily through involvement with their church. As
a college student in the 1960s and ‘70s she was actively involved in the
women’s rights movement and the National Organization for Women. She
even debated Phyllis Schlafly in person during the fight to pass the Equal
Rights Amendment. After completing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
at the University of South Dakota and obtaining a Master’s degree in Public
Service from De Paul University, she returned to South Dakota in 1972 to
accept a position in state government. In 1976, she was chosen as a White
House Fellow by President Ford and appointed as a special assistant to his
Secretary of Commerce. Following this fellowship, she returned to Sioux
Falls, South Dakota and joined the Bank of South Dakota, now US Bank,
holding numerous management positions. Over the years, Myers was encour-
aged to be involved in her community as a representative of the bank and
served on the boards of the Sioux Falls Area Community Foundation, United
Way and Girl Scouts (Myers, personal communication, March 19, 2020).
The invitation from the Executive Director of the Girl Scouts to join
their board of directors and finance committee in 1978 launched a life-long
passion for the organization. It aligned with Myers’s belief that girls need
opportunities to grow and to lead, and it allowed her to use her talents in
finance to help advise the nonprofit. Her success led to additional oppor-
tunities to serve on the Girl Scouts’ National Board as National Treasurer
and First Vice-President and to become a delegate to six World Conferences,
eventually holding the position of Deputy Chair of the World Association of
Girl Guides and Girl Scouts from 2005 to 2008.
Myers traveled to 45 countries observing Girl Scouts or Girl Guides. “I
visited a school in the slums of Nairobi that was run entirely by the Kenyan
Girl Guides Association. Free public education did not exist for girls at that
time. Without Girl Guides, the girls would not have had any access to educa-
tion. It was so meaningful to me and that’s why it’s been my number one
passion and it encouraged me to join the Olave Baden-Powell Society, an
international fellowship of women and men to provide support to the World
Association” (Myers, personal communication, March 19, 2020).
In addition to being inspired by the programs of Guides and Girl Scouts,
Myers met amazing women and had opportunities to grow her leadership
skills while advancing the cause of women and girls on a global level. Today,
she and her husband have legacy and donor-advised funds at local, national
and world Girl Scout organizations, several community foundations, and are
active community philanthropists in Naples, Florida where they reside.
Myers’s story is just one example of how thanking women can include
exposure to new experiences, career and leadership opportunities, new
friends, and colleagues. Her life was changed because of her initial volunteer
engagement and gift to the Girl Scouts and with every thank you Myers’s
commitment to the organization deepens.
Mystery—Making Acknowledgment Special

Every fundraiser would be ecstatic and tremendously successful if we had the
answer to the question, “What makes a woman donor feel special, loved, and
appreciated?” What we do know is, when donors feel good about their gifts
and feel thanked, they are more likely to repeat contributions, and to stay
engaged with the cause. Being appreciated is good for the body, mind and
soul. John Amodeo, therapist and author, outlines five ways being appreciated
nourishes us.
1. We are being valued. It reinforces a positive sense of self-worth.

2. We are being seen. Someone recognizes our special qualities: goodness,
wisdom, and compassion.
3. We are being liked.
4. It deepens a sense of meaning in our lives. Victor Frankl, the famous
Austrian psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, suggests that human beings
are motivated by a “will to meaning.” We flourish when we live with a
sense of meaning or purpose.
5. It connects us. It strengthens our bond to another person. It satisfies our
longing for a healthy attachment to others (Amodeo, 2016).
Reflecting on the opportunity to make a donor feel special prompted a

reflection on my graduate training in psychology and counseling. Here are a
few ideas about building a special acknowledgment for a donor.
Start Where Your Donor Is
In the profession of counseling therapists frequently talk about starting where

the client is, in other words, don’t make assumptions about what someone
needs or wants. Don’t project your ideas about a solution or outcome into
the situation. Fundraisers can learn a lot from the experts in the human rela-
tionship business. Ask a woman donor about how she likes to be thanked.
Before publicizing names in a newsletter or establishing a donor wall, ask
142 L. A. Buntz
permission. Most donors, but not all, like to have some public recognition.
In the beginning, discover whether she prefers public or private recognition.
Ask her to describe an experience where she was recognized for something
she did; what made it special and why? What did she like about it or what
didn’t she like? The type of acknowledgment you need to provide may change
over time; someone initially uncomfortable with public recognition may get
more comfortable with it or she may choose to stay anonymous. But, don’t
assume—ask. Many women are very humble when it comes to recognition
or may be reluctant to answer the question, so ask their friends or a family
member for ideas.
What Makes Her Special
Secondly, therapists and fundraisers should focus on being “strength-based.”

Essentially this means paying attention to the positive attributes of an indi-
vidual and building on them. Women donors have multiple strengths and
skills; identify and recognize them. Observation is the key to building and
enhancing relationships with donors. What is unique about this donor?
Observe her in multiple situations if possible. How does she interact in meet-
ings, events or social encounters? If you need more information, ask her
family or friends to describe her in several words or phrases. Reflect those
attributes back to her. “You are so kind.” “I love your jokes.” “You have great
leadership skills.” All of us want to feel unique and be seen and liked, so seize
the opportunity to reinforce a connection to the donor through verbal and
written recognition or shared experiences. Developing a personal connection
to the donor in addition to a professional one is not prohibited and many
times friendships and long-term relationships bloom. Just be clear about the
boundaries of the relationship.
Co-Create Her Plan for the Future
Most individuals like to create their own future versus having someone else
make decisions for them. Donors feel special and loved when someone listens
to them and recognizes their past contribution without asking for another
financial gift immediately. In fact, don’t ask for another gift immediately. Let
the donor bask in your admiration for a while.
If a relationship has been established between a fundraiser and donor, it
can be fun and bonding to co-create a future plan. Bring ideas to her about
how to stay engaged with a cause focusing on the strengths and skills she
could contribute. What ideas does she have? Asking for advice is one of the
most flattering overtures we can offer. People like to be asked for their input
and women donors do have opinions, we just need to draw them out. Then,
give her credit for the ideas that are implemented. It doesn’t cost anything and
will truly make her feel unique and valued. What would give her purpose and
a sense of meaning?
Lydia Brown never sits still. If there is a job to be done, an opportunity to
learn, or a new challenge presented, Brown is there. As an active community
donor, she has been involved in many nonprofit boards and women’s organi-
zations, and eventually our paths crossed through mutual friends and United
Way. Initially, I recruited her to co-chair our annual United Way campaign,
moving into the chair role the following year. Campaigns had been increasing
and when we met to discuss the possibility of setting a $10 million goal,
the highest amount ever raised, Brown jumped at the chance. We met with
previous campaign chairs and co-created a plan that would engage companies,
donors, and women.
At the same time, our United Way was exploring the development of a
women’s philanthropy initiative. I approached Brown about the possibility of
being one of its founders and again we began to hatch a plan. We hosted plan-
ning events at women’s homes, held focus groups, and eventually launched a
women’s philanthropy and leadership group.
Brown has great ideas, tons of connections, and loves to create. She success-
fully raised $10 million dollars for a United Way annual campaign, beating
every previous record, and continues to be one of the charter members of the
United Way’s Women United Initiative. Today, the Women’s United Initiative
has more than 300 members. The power of our co-creation was a combi-
nation of asking Lydia for her ideas, fueling her passion for philanthropy,
using her connections to other donors, and offering her an opportunity to
create a legacy. Thanking her publicly fueled her enthusiasm and she received
accolades and recognition from others for her creativity, determination and
results.
Magic—Memorable and Impactful Thanks

What is one of your most memorable philanthropy experiences? What made
it memorable? During the research for this book, these questions were asked
of numerous women philanthropists. The range of responses was vast, and
none focused on the size of the contribution. Most of them described the
intense feelings they experienced by helping individuals, making a difference
144 L. A. Buntz
or advancing a cause. They talked about the inspiration to give and feelings
of accomplishment when they witnessed the results of their work. Many of
the donors did not have wealth early in their life and career. As their wealth
capacity changed, they felt privileged to be able to help others. For some
women this was a deeply emotional interchange and reflected the power of
philanthropy for both the donor and the recipient.
Salma, the co-owner of a printing company, described her decision to
pay off the debt of a destitute employee. Julie chaired a successful capital
campaign for her college. Fredricka funded political action activities focused
on gender equality issues. Karen started a family fund at the local community
foundation. Each of these women gave little thought to how they would be
thanked because giving fueled their spirit. The experiences stayed with the
donor because it touched her heart. The task of the fundraiser is to acknowl-
edge the donor and multiply those tender and special feelings. Women may
not want public recognition, but consider organizing a small group of grateful
recipients and supporters who can provide a blanket of gratefulness—most
women will bask in the warmth of knowing their gift touches other’s lives.
Recognition Creates More Philanthropy

Kohler Company, a privately held 145-year-old business with more than
38,000 employees globally is best known for its bathroom design products,
furniture, tile, engines, generators, as well as golf and resort destinations.
Laura Kohler is the great-granddaughter of company founder John Michael
Kohler, daughter of CEO David Kohler, and holds the title of Senior Vice
President of Human Resources, Stewardship, and Sustainability. When you
speak with her, you immediately sense her pride in the company her family
founded and how seriously she takes her role as its spokesperson. She
clearly loves her job and believes that she has influenced how the company
engages employees, shares the story of their work, and makes new innovative
philanthropic investments.
Since joining the company in 1999, Kohler has helped harness the inno-
vation of her employees to create solutions to local and global problems in
the areas of health and sanitation, community engagement and stewardship,
and building new collaborations with other major foundations. She has done
this by telling the Kohler story internally and externally. “I am a steward,” she
says. “I am here to take the company to the next level and to get millennials
engaged” (Kohler, personal communication, 2018).
One of her proudest endeavors has been Kohler Foundation’s work with
the Gates Foundation and Caltech funding sanitation efforts in India’s
schools. “We know that sanitation impacts the lives of women and girls,” she
said in an interview. Millions of girls all over the world spend their day toting
water for their families’ drinking and sanitation needs. She tasked Kohler’s
engineers to develop a closed loop flush toilet system that recycled waste,
prevented ground water pollution and could be used in homes and schools
lacking existing plumbing systems. So far, the Kohler Clarity Water Filtration
System has impacted more than 9,000 students in India and China. Kohler
sees this kind of innovation as a way to inspire employees to use their skills
and creativity philanthropically. It is an extension of the company’s key brand
and products while demonstrating stewardship and helping women and girls.
Listening to her employees and using their input to help create new solu-
tions is a gift of Kohler’s. She promotes volunteerism, supports the arts and
social services, and taps the technical expertise of the company’s engineers.
Her approach to management and engagement is a bit of a departure from the
company’s more paternal top-down approach, and Kohler feels positive about
the results. “Stewardship and sustainability can both be part of social good.
And, it helps if the ideas are commercially viable. We can make the world a
better place” (Kohler, personal communication, November 17, 2017).
Every engineer who worked on the project contributed a gift of time and
talent. Laura and the Kohler Company received recognition and thanks by
receiving the Mahatma Award for Social Good. The presentation of the award
and an interview with Kohler created a platform for the promotion of inno-
vative partnerships and philanthropy. While the award was memorable, the
possibility of more third world projects was the best form of thanks. In this
same vein, Lura McBride, a CEO of a large manufacturing company in the
Midwest, says it best. “Recognition is not the driver. It is how can I be a
multiplier. How can my philanthropy create more? I believe in paying it
forward, – if I can inspire someone else to give, then maybe they will inspire
someone else” (McBride, personal communication, January 21, 2020).
Thanking an Inspirational Woman
“The measure of one’s life is not how long, how much, it is how good.”
-Helen G. Nassif, philanthropist, attorney (UnityPoint-St.Lukes 2017).
Helen G. Nassif grew up in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the youngest of nine

children born to an immigrant family. While the older children worked
146 L. A. Buntz
in the family grocery store and oriental rug business, the three youngest,
Michael, John and Helen were encouraged to further their educations (Unity-
Point Health, 2017). She attended Coe College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
George Washington University Law School in Washington, DC, and built
a successful career in banking, government, and real estate.
Nassif and her husband began their philanthropic journey in the early
1990s. She always fondly remembered her hometown, and in 1996 made her
first six-figure contribution to St. George Orthodox Church there. When she
wanted to honor her brother, Dr. John Nassif, who had practiced dentistry
there and died of heart disease at age 50, she made her first gift to Unity-
Point Health–St. Luke’s Hospital for the establishment of a new heart center.
A savvy businesswoman, she asked about naming rights for that donation,
which was met with great enthusiasm. Putting her name on the building let
the community know that women can be bold and brave in their philan-
thropy. The following year she made another donation, this time to fund
the Helen G. Nassif Center for Women’s and Children’s Health at the same
hospital. Several other large contributions followed, including funding a
cancer and radiation center at UnityPoint Health-St. Lukes and additional
gifts to other organizations in her community totaling more than $8 million.
When Nassif passed away at age 98, UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s wanted
to recognize her legacy. A video was produced, a legacy booklet designed, and
when a recognition event was planned, the Nassif family siblings, children
and grandchildren, turned out in numbers. It became a multi-day event and
family reunion celebrating her life and legacy bringing together and demon-
strating how the power of one woman inspired her family and others to “step
in and step up” their philanthropy.
Suggestions for Acknowledging Women

1. Create a Women’s Gratitude Day. Have staff or board members call
donors and thank them adding highlights about women who have given
gifts to the organization. Thank them for joining this special group of
women donors.
2. Build a gratitude scrapbook and give it to your donor. Include words and
pictures of her work and how it impacted others, or make a video.
3. Create a gratitude box and include thank you notes from all the people
that were touched by her gift of time or treasure. Include notes from
younger women who are inspired by the donor’s philanthropy.
4. Create something handmade, a dessert, a plant, a video, photo collage—

and add a note of thanks.
5. At the next meeting of women donors have an appreciation circle, each
woman can share an attribute about others that she admires.
6. Establish a scholarship in the donor’s name.
7. Create a piece of music especially for her and play it at a recognition
event.
8. Create a video interviewing other women about your donor’s giving.
9. Do a “roast” of admiration and thanks, invite other women from your
community who are contributors to other causes.
10. Use data to identify loyal, long-time contributors and offer them a special
treat—lunch with the CEO, or front row seats at an event.
11. Post all your words of gratitude on your website or social media, creating
a word cloud around her name.
12. Nominate your woman donor for special awards (with her permission).
Finally, hire the best people and keep them as long as possible to create
continuity. Ask them what they do to thank donors and build positive
sustaining relationships and, then, do it.
Bibliography
Amodeo, J. (2016). 5 ways that being appreciated nourishes us. Psych Central .
Retrieved July 7, 2019, from https://psychcentral.com/blog/5-ways-that-being-
appreciated-nourishes-us
Bloomerang. (2021). A guide to donor retention. Retrieved May 22, 2021, from
https://bloomerang.com/retention
Burke, P. (2008). Donor centered fundraising, fifth printing (31). Cygnus Applied
Research Inc.
Grace, K. S. (2005). Beyond fundraising: New strategies for nonprofit innovation and
investment (146). Wiley.
Joselyn, H. (2019). Moving on: Why fundraisers leave and how to keep them.
Chronicle of Philanthropy, pp. 8–11.
Kaufhold, G. (2017). Fundraising: Donor relations vs. stewardship (2). Retrieved May
3, 2020, from https://fundraisingwonks.wordpress.com/
Kleopfer, A. M. (2003). Communicating with female philanthropic donors: How
various methods of thanking women and informing them of the use of gifts impact
giving (2). University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Trace Tennessee Research and
Creative Exchange. May. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from https://trace.tennessee.
edu/utk_gradthes/2-35
148 L. A. Buntz
Levis, B., Miller, B., & Williams C. (2018). 2018 fundraising effectiveness survey
report: Fundraising effectiveness project. A Project of the Growth in Giving
Initiative.
Shang, J., Sargent, A., Carpenter, K., & Day, H. (2018). Learning how to say thank
you (11). The Philanthropy Center.
Stiffman, E., (2015). What women donors want: Cultivation and steward-
ship advice for fundraisers. Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved August 20,
2020, from https://www.philanthropy.com/article/what-women-donors-want-cul
tivation-and-stewardship-advice-for-fundraisers/
UnityPoint Health. (2017). Generosity, cherished—The legacy of Helen G. Nassif. St.
Luke’s Health Foundation, Annual Report.
11
Achievements: Healthcare, Higher Education,
Environment
Achievement is the sixth stage in the development of a women’s philan-

thropy initiative. Often thought of as the final phase, a goal constantly
hovering on the horizon, it is not the finale, but rather a milestone in
the continuous evolution of an initiative. This chapter will focus on three
professional sectors that have embraced women’s philanthropy with unique
and creative approaches, yielding successful outcomes and achievements:
healthcare, education and the environment.
Healthcare
Healthcare has historically been one of the most popular charitable sectors for
philanthropic support from individuals, foundations, and community-based
organizations. Women participate in all of these as donors, fundraisers, and
leaders. The most recent data from multiple philanthropy resources paints a
picture of substantial financial investments:
• Giving USA reports gifts to health organizations increased 6.8% to $41.46

billion from 2018 to 2019 (Giving USA, 2020).
• The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s 2019 America’s Favorite Charities lists
Mayo Clinic #2 and St. Jude’s Hospital #3 (Stiffman & Haynes, 2019,
p. 9).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_11
150 L. A. Buntz
• Six of the top twenty-five U.S. individual donors in 2019 gave to health-
related causes, research or healthcare institutions (Rendon & Di Mento,
2020, pp. 8–30).
Women are intimately connected to healthcare. According to the U.S.

Department of Labor, women make 80% of the healthcare decisions in the
U.S. (Wentz, 2017). Often labeled the “chief medical officer” in the family,
they care for themselves, their families, and loved ones. Upwards of 75% of
all caregivers are female and they may spend as much as 50% more time
providing care than do males (Family Caregiver Alliance, 2016). Women
constitute 70% of the healthcare workforce (Raphael, 2019). And, when they
are done working, more than 75% of residents in assisted living communi-
ties and 70% of nursing home residents are women (American Association of
Long-Term Care Insurance, 2009–2021).
Major Donors
Securing a large personal philanthropic gift from a donor is one of the high-
lights of a fundraiser’s job. In the healthcare industry these gifts typically fund
capital projects, new programs, research or innovative partnerships, and are
frequently the result of a donor’s personal connection to a cause. Something
has happened in her own life, or in the lives of her loved ones, that inspires
her to give.
Irene Pollin, for example, has donated millions of dollars to healthcare.
She and her husband, Abe, earned their wealth as Washington, DC, real
estate titans, eventually owning professional basketball and hockey teams, and
building entertainment complexes. But wealth couldn’t prevent the Pollins
from experiencing two heartbreaking tragedies. Both of their children died
from congenital heart defects: their son Kenneth at 15 months and their
daughter Linda at age 16.
In 2009, Abe passed away and Irene began her journey of personal philan-
thropy. In 2013, she gave $10 million to the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center
for the Prevention of Heart Disease in honor of Kenneth, and in honor of
Linda, an additional $10 million for heart wellness to the Hadassah Medical
Center in Jerusalem, and $10 million for a heart program at Los Angeles
Cedars Sinai Medical Center. In addition to these philanthropic gifts, she
helped establish Sister to Sister, a Women’s Heart Health Foundation dedi-
cated to educating and motivating women to make constructive lifestyle
changes to prevent heart disease (Heller, 2016).
11 Achievements: Healthcare, Higher Education, Environment 151
Another outstanding healthcare contributor, Lyda Hill describes herself

as a “philentreprenuer,” someone who combines philanthropy and
entrepreneurship. A Dallas entrepreneur, her wealth was built on a career in
the travel industry, investments, and a substantial inheritance from her grand-
father, Dallas oil tycoon H.L. Hunt. With a total worth of $1.4 billion, she
has signed the Giving Pledge indicating she intends to give it all away during
her lifetime. Her personal connection to healthcare began when she experi-
enced breast cancer in 1979. Survival prompted her to fund the Oklahoma
Breast Care Center. As a firm believer in science as the answer to many of life’s
problems, she has made numerous investments in other institutions including
$50 million to the University of Texas’s MD Anderson Cancer Center’s Moon
Shots Program® to develop improved cancer detection tools, $25 million to
establish a Department of Bioinformatics in Dallas, and in honor of her Air
Force pilot nephew, $2 million to the University of Colorado to establish
a Veterans Health and Trauma Clinic (Philanthropy Roundtable, 2021). In
addition, she has invested in environmental projects and parks, higher educa-
tion and commercial business development in Fort Worth and Oklahoma
City.
The achievements associated with these women philanthropists illustrate
how working with women donors over a period of time and finding their
passions ignites philanthropy. These achievements can be defined from two
different perspectives—the donors and the fundraisers. For the donor, it’s the
opportunity to invest in solutions to healthcare problems, as well, perhaps, to
build a legacy. Neither of these women asked for her name on a building or
sought significant public recognition, but they are leaving footprints behind,
inspiring other women to give.
The fundraiser’s achievement is the connection established with HNW
donors resulting in a long-term relationship and eventually major gifts. As
the donor’s story unfolded, a fundraiser thoughtfully considered what would
motivate each to give. Relationships were built over time; the fundraiser
and the donor became partners. They created a future of better health for
everyone. When fundraisers present opportunities to donors that match their
motivations and aspirations, everyone wins, and the achievements multiply.
Women Leaders
With deep pockets and autonomy in decision-making, many foundations
select illness prevention, healthcare research, treatment, and infrastructure as
strategic long-term investments. Women now serve as CEOs of a number of
152 L. A. Buntz
the largest national and family foundations, bringing their gender lens to their
organizations, leading countries during the pandemic, and influencing the
direction of health-related philanthropic investments now and in the future.
Here are a few examples.
Until 2017, Risa Lavizzo-Mourey was CEO of the largest healthcare
philanthropy foundation in the U.S., the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
(RWJF). The first African American woman to hold that position, she estab-
lished a Commission to Build a Healthier America, which published Beyond
Health Care: New Directions to a Healthier America, in an effort to fight child-
hood obesity by studying “cross-sector interventions beyond the health care
system that are likely to achieve a significant positive impact on the health
of all Americans in years, not decades” (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
2016).
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Robert Wood Johnson Foun-
dation Executive Vice-President Julia Morita has advocated for adequate,
sustainable, and equitable funding for public health, noting that one of the
biggest public health threats is racism itself (Robert Wood Johnson Founda-
tion, 2001–2021). As a pediatrician and parent, she has spoken about the
inequalities the pandemic exposed and highlighted the urgent need for the
Center for Disease Control to activate and coordinate vaccine planning to
reach all populations.
Melinda Gates has brought attention and visibility to the plight of women’s
needs, specifically healthcare, to the Gates Foundation, and highlighted this
need through her recent book, The Moment of Lift. A reluctant spokesperson,
she had to be pushed into speaking out about the issues of gender and health.
In her book, she focuses on family planning, maternal, and newborn health-
care as top priorities for the foundation. Gates has invested more than $1
billion in family planning efforts worldwide. “Access to contraception can
unlock the cycle of poverty for women,” Gates claims (OHSU, Center for
Women’s Health, 2001–2020).
But perhaps the most recent achievements in healthcare management have
been the women leaders of countries across the globe as they battled the
COVID-19 healthcare crisis. New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern,
Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, Finland’s Prime Minister Sanna Marin,
Taiwan’s Tsai Ing-wen, Iceland’s Katrin Jokobsdottir and Barbados’ Prime
Minister Mia Mottley all took aggressive action, instituting quarantines, and
other public health measures. As other countries left the virus unchecked and
were reluctant to close businesses or quarantine residents, virus cases esca-
lated. These women advocated for policies that protected their constituents
even when those policies were unpopular. Tsai Ing-wen was among the first
and fastest responders, introducing 124 measures to block the spread of the
virus. Jokobsdottir offered free coronavirus testing to all citizens and Merkel
bravely declared that the virus could infect up to 70% of the population as
she admonished everyone to “take it seriously” (Wittenberg-Cox, 2020).
Community-Based Programs
Community-based healthcare programs offer an opportunity for women
to get engaged in philanthropy on many different levels: scales of giving,
networking, volunteering, learning, and leading. Usually, these programs are
centered in a nonprofit organization or healthcare institution. Nonprofit
charities with a specific health focus raise money to address a wide range
of health issues, employing donors to give annually through an event, or to
a specific person/family impacted by disease. While these fundraising drives
may be small, they are useful in engaging women donors in early-phase
philanthropy or in providing opportunities to step up and be more visible
about their contributions. Think about the annual Alzheimer’s Walk or a
Juvenile Diabetes Gala as an opportunity to get women involved at multiple
levels. The fundraising activities can be done in person or through social
media.
Family Caregiver’s Center

Kathy and Dave Good’s story exemplifies the qualities inherent in their
surname. Throughout their lives, they had been community volunteers and
leaders, respected professionals, supportive friends, generous donors, and
caring, compassionate people. Dave was a family practice attorney, bicyclist,
marathon runner, and one of the kindest souls you would ever meet. In 1999,
Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack appointed him a district judge. He began his new
role with enthusiasm and excitement.
Four years later, at age 56, he was diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer’s
and Kathy began her caregiver journey. As a social worker and therapist, she
was very familiar with the network of social service systems and where to
look for help and support during this very difficult period of their lives. Still,
it was an overwhelming responsibility. She surrounded herself with friends
and helpers, managing Dave’s care in their home for more than eight years.
The last four years of his life were spent at the Hallmar Care Center at
Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He passed away in 2015 and
154 L. A. Buntz
Kathy knew that her life would forever be changed. She never dreamed her
work, and Dave’s life journey, would become the catalyst for a gift to the
community.
In 2014, Tim Charles, president and CEO of Mercy Medical Center, was
visiting Northern Westchester Hospital in New York, where he observed the
Ken Hamilton Caregivers Center, a sanctuary for families whose loved ones
were experiencing cancer or other chronic health conditions. Charles was
intrigued and inspired by the concept of a center to support families navi-
gating significant medical issues. Anticipating the future healthcare needs
in his own community, Charles began to think about establishing a center
for families coping with dementia or Alzheimer’s, two of the most difficult
medical and social issues for families to manage. With that, the seed had
been planted for the future Family Caregivers Center of Mercy. Charles knew
the right person to lead the charge, someone whose life had been person-
ally impacted and who had passion, creativity, community connections, and
organizational skills. That person was Kathy Good. Charles and Good had
become acquainted when she helped select and purchase artwork for the
Hallmar Care Center, where her husband had been a resident. Good also
served on the local Alzheimer’s Board with Charles’ wife, Janice.
Together, Charles and Good co-created a plan for a community caregiver’s
center. Focus groups were formed and numerous interviews were conducted
with community leaders, as well as families that had been touched by
dementia. Based on overwhelmingly positive responses, the Mercy Hospital
Foundation contracted for a feasibility study to determine support for an
endowment campaign. In early 2015, a $2.5 million-dollar campaign was
launched. Just months later, in December 2015, Good helped cut the ribbon
for the Family Caregivers Center of Mercy, one of the first of its kind in
the nation. More than 700 donors, including a woman who changed her
estate plans to direct a six-figure gift to the center, contributed to its unique
programs.
The center has grown and evolved over the last five years. More than 1,050
educational sessions have been provided and 1,157 caregivers have received
information and support as they deal with a wide range of issues including
respite care, financial plans, emotional, physical and medical care, and the
loss of a loved one. Seventy-eight percent of the caregivers seeking services
are women.
This critical community health center would not have been possible
without the dedication and passion of Good, the support of the hospital and
its foundation, and the generosity of the community.
United Way’s Healthcare Initiative for Uninsured

Women
Developing a women’s philanthropy healthcare initiative in small or mid-
sized nonprofits is possible with a dedicated focus and defined strategy.
One of the Women United groups in Iowa selected healthcare for uninsured
women as their focus for giving. As a member of Women United , each woman
gave $500–$1,000 annually. These membership dues were pooled and a
committee of women donors reviewed grant proposals from local nonprofit
agencies that provided healthcare to women. One of the primary partner-
ships that helped promote the women’s philanthropy initiative was the local
Community Free Health Care Clinic. The clinic’s CEO was a nurse whose
insight into women’s health needs helped the committee learn about the
particular needs of uninsured women and make informed decisions about
grants. The clinic staff had expertise and insights that were matched with
United Way’s ability to raise funds from annual donors. The partnerships
also provided opportunities for donors to see the work of the clinic through
tours or volunteering.
Each year a different woman chaired the Women United Committee and
co-hosted fundraising and social events. Dr. Johanna Abernathy, an obste-
trician and healthcare advocate, became involved and provided her expertise
and insights about women’s healthcare. Her involvement added a new level of
credibility to the decisions the committee made regarding grants and invest-
ments. Grants were distributed to more than ten different health agencies for
women’s annual health exams, breast exams, diabetes testing and education,
medications, mental health services, and prescriptions.
The achievements of Women United were celebrated at its 10th anniversary
in 2015: the group had grown from 30 women to more than 350; more than
$1 million dollars had been raised and distributed; hundreds of uninsured
women in the community had received healthcare. Fundraisers within this
program were extremely successful in promoting Women United within local
companies as part of the annual campaign, networking women through social
events, and providing metrics about community needs. Harnessing the power
of the founders’ group, each woman donor helped recruit new members.
United Way committed staff to this affinity group so fundraisers could build
the capacity to steward these women, increase their gifts, and sustain them as
members for many years.
156 L. A. Buntz
Mental Health
One of the most difficult areas of healthcare to attract donors to is mental
health, because stigmas attached to these diseases make it difficult for
nonprofits to raise philanthropic funds. The Centre for Addiction and Mental
Health (CAMH) in Toronto, Ontario has recently launched a new initiative,
womenmind . Supported by two gifts totaling $6.5 million, its goal is fueling
philanthropy focused on “tackling the unique gender issues that underrep-
resented people face when it comes to their mental health and supporting
female researchers to become leaders in the sciences.” Sandi and Jim Treliving
and family contributed $5 million describing it as “a gift from our family to
women everywhere” (CAMH, 2020). The Hudson Bay Foundation added to
the Treliving gift providing another $1.5 million to launch the project.
Dr. Catherine Zahn, President and CEO of CAMH says, “Health care
research has overlooked the biological and socially determined issues unique
to women. At CAMH we have worked hard toward gender parity in
recruiting, retaining and supporting our women scientists, and research that
addresses mental illness and its manifestations in women. We are leading
important projects focused on women’s mental health and today, 40% of our
researchers are women” (CAMH, 2020).
In the first five years (2020–2025), womenmind plans to recruit female
scientists, hold research grant competitions, offer mentoring for women in
science, and host an annual global research symposium. These financial
contributions will help more girls and women as they experience needs for
treatment related to mental health issues and encourage women to become
involved in the mental health sciences, addressing severely underfunded
health issues. Womenmind is an example of a private philanthropist and
foundation partnership funding innovative strategies and addressing current
needs. Fundraisers leverage these types of personal gifts and match them with
other public or private funding sources to multiply the gift and outcomes.
Suggestions for Fundraisers Working

in Healthcare
There are numerous opportunities to pursue a women’s philanthropy initia-
tive in the healthcare arena. Here are a few opportunities to explore.
1. Select donors who have a personal connection to a specific cause and

ask them to help co-create, support, and lead the development of a new
program or service within an existing healthcare institution.
2. Incorporate women donors into wellness programs at your company and
local charity events. As they model healthy living, they will inspire others
to follow.
3. Ask local sports celebrities to promote giving to healthcare causes.
4. Nonprofits with a recreational focus can align with women donors
to sponsor events and encourage healthy lifestyles for girls and young
women.
5. It is important to advocate for mental and emotional health. Look for
a brave spokesperson and donor who can share stories and encourage
others to step up their giving for nonprofits that provide such services.
Ask these donors for a challenge grant to match gifts.
6. Use digital giving options. Women give more online than do men.
Friends give when friends ask; develop a social media giving campaign
for a specific cause. Focus on national heart month or breast cancer
awareness, for example.
7. Tier your giving programs to provide opportunities for all levels of
donors: Small annual or one-time gifts can be used to support ongoing
programs within a healthcare facility or be pooled to help launch new
ones. Larger gifts can be directed to capital projects or endowments.
8. Offer opportunities to get involved through learning and volunteering
about healthcare-related diseases, treatments, and interventions. Visit
clinic sites, hospitals, and research facilities so donors can hear firsthand
the stories of patients and families.
9. Have women doctors, nurses, researchers, or administrators become
the spokesperson for a specific health issue encouraging giving. Kathy
Krusie, Community Physician Network Chief Administrative Officer
in Indianapolis, Indiana, shared her story of volunteering for a Heart
Association fundraiser. Krusie had promised to raise a certain amount
of money for the fundraising campaign and if she achieved her goal,
the Heart Association would feature her picture on a community bill-
board. As she solicited gifts, she explained the promise of a billboard
picture. Her friends wanted to see her picture posted around town and
gave generously. They knew that Krusie, a rather humble person, would
never really like seeing her picture big and bold on street signs; their
gifts were a form of affectionate teasing. The other more important
incentive was that Krusie was the only woman healthcare executive in
158 L. A. Buntz
their community. They wanted her to be seen and recognized. (Krusie,

personal communication, June, 22, 2020)
10. Create support groups for your health professionals and ask others to
support them as essential workers.
11. Partner with public health officials to promote education and address
critical and emerging healthcare needs, especially during times of
community health crises.
12. Ask women donors to sponsor the cost of healthcare assessments and
studies. Research and knowledge are important to women and help
inform the development of programs or initiatives.
13. Ask women donors to support healthcare through memorials, endow-
ment gifts, and other activities that can honor loved ones who have
passed away.
14. Ask women donors to support prevention-related services: annual phys-
icals, breast exams, and immunizations through giving circles or other
women’s organizations.
Higher Education
Education is another sector with a long history of engaging philanthropic
donors. With a built-in constituency base of alumnae, university foundations
spend countless hours and resources courting HNW prospects, students,
faculty, and graduates. Many elite universities have alumnae who have
amassed considerable wealth through their professional lives, entrepreneurial
activity or inheritance. These donors invest in programs they have personal
connections to or in honor of the influential role the university played in
their personal and professional development.
As state and federal financial support for universities has dwindled and
more schools are investing resources in securing private dollars to replace
public funding, the search for donors and major gifts has intensified. The
following are a few examples illustrating the current state of philanthropy in
education and scale of donor’s gifts.
• Between 2005 and 2014, a period in which the combined net worth of the
Forbes 400 nearly doubled, over 14,000 gifts of $1 million or more were
made to colleges and universities. At least 100 of these were worth over
$100 million (Callahan, 2017, p. 239).
• In 2016, nearly half of all donations from the 50 largest donors in the U.S.
went to colleges and universities (DeBoskey, 2017).
• Allen and Patricia Herbert gave $89 million to the University of Miami
where they met as students in 1954 and earned their business degrees. This
brings their total lifetime giving to the University of Miami to more than
$100 million (Jones, 2019).
• Lorraine Casey Stengl, a physician and real estate investor, donated $38.6
million to her alma mater, the University of Texas at Austin, before her
death in 2018 (Rendon & Di Mento, 2020, p. 8).
• MacKenzie Scott recently gave $30 million to the Borough of Manhattan
Community College, $50 million to Prairie View A&M University, a
historically black college in Texas, and significant donations to women’s
universities and technical colleges—a rare move that demonstrates support
for smaller institutions serving women and minority populations (Redden,
2021).
More than thirty years ago, Martha Taylor at the University of Wisconsin
helped launch a women and philanthropy initiative in higher education. A
leader in this field, author of several books on women and philanthropy,
Taylor is frequently referred to as the “mother of the women’s philanthropy
movement in education.” She began the conversation about how women give
differently from men, documented that belief with qualitative and quanti-
tative research, and helped establish the Women’s Philanthropy Council in
1998.
In 2009, the Women’s Philanthropy Institute published Women’s Philan-
thropy on Campus: A Handbook for Working with Women Donors. A survey
of twenty-seven different women’s philanthropy programs at universities and
colleges yielded some interesting results, as well as recognition that higher
education could play a larger role in engaging women donors. When the
study was published fewer than 10% of higher education institutions had a
women’s philanthropy initiative. The handbook offers advice and guidance
on how to develop one in an educational setting.
Working with woman donors would seem like a natural fit for colleges and
universities, especially with the rising number of female students and gradu-
ates. In 2017, women comprised 56% of the students on college campuses,
and overall there were some 2.2 million fewer men than women enrolled
in college that year (Marcus, 2017). In 2019, 36.6% of women in the
U.S. completed four or more years of college compared to 35.4% of men
(Duffin, 2020). Despite these statistics not all higher education institutions
have embraced the fact that there are more women on campus and gradu-
ating from their institutions. How many universities currently have women’s
philanthropy initiatives has been impossible to track.
160 L. A. Buntz
One factor in the apparent lack of women’s philanthropic initiatives in

education is the belief that women lack the financial resources to be mega
donors. It is true that although women outpace men in terms of earning
college degrees, they still lag in earning power. In addition, the number of
women faculty lags behind men. While the situation has improved from
31% in 2003 to 45% in 2019, a closer look reveals that women are filling
instructor and lecturer roles, not tenured positions (Turner, 2019). And,
the American Council on Education 2017 study found that only 30% of
college and university presidents were women. Yet, despite these statistics,
some programs have achieved stellar results in their efforts to engage women
donors.
Arizona State University

Through the leadership of Foundation Chief Executive Officer, Gretchen
Buhlig, Arizona State University (ASU) has built a very successful women’s
philanthropy program. When Michael Crowe became President of ASU in
2002, his wife Sybil Francis became an advocate and leader in the develop-
ment of the initiative. Alumnae, business sector representatives, and current
philanthropists were invited to the table and asked for their ideas about
the creation of a program for women donors. The suggestions offered were
abundant.
Three core goals were identified: education, philanthropy, and networking.
Educating women on what philanthropy can do and what the university
offers was essential. Networking current and future women philanthropists
with students proved to be an exciting and inspiring interchange. As students
provided zest and ideas for the future, shared their stories of struggle and
accomplishments, professional women mentored them. The connections
established help to build a pipeline of new philanthropists.
ASU’s women’s philanthropy initiative has never been viewed as compe-
tition with other foundation fundraising. Women giving $1,000 each raise
$300,000–$400,000 annually. The university asks internal programs or
departments to submit requests for funds which are screened and prioritized.
The women’s philanthropy committee votes on the grant distributions. Since
its inception, many women have contributed and now are engaging their
daughters and younger donors in the work.
The achievements of this program are the result of careful planning and
strategizing. By successfully integrating the women’s philanthropy initiative
into the foundation’s fundraising strategy, the foundation staff and initiatives
members have created solid partnerships and support for many of the univer-
sity’s programs. Faculty and alumni from many different disciplines support
the women’s philanthropy initiative because it brings money back to their
programs. It also builds a pipeline for other women in the university to
become members of the women’s philanthropy initiative (Buhlig, personal
Arizona State University’s model helps us understand how a women’s
philanthropy initiative can be successful. Here are a few of the lessons learned:
1. Secure a leader to support the program. Select someone who is respected,

well-known, and will stay in the position for longer than a year.
2. Develop a strategy that does not compete with other fundraising within
the college or university, but rather complements and integrates with it.
3. Involve multiple generations of women including alumnae, students and
community members.
4. Handpick your initial team of committed volunteers, selecting people who
are highly connected and networked and will bring friends to the work.
(Currently women philanthropy members at ASU are 30% alumnae and
70% friends.)
5. Develop joint ownership with university administrators and women’s
philanthropy members for the selection of grants.
6. Engage the women to participate in site visits and learning opportunities.
7. Create partnerships with community companies and nonprofits that
have women leaders. The university can support their work and engage
potential women donors into the philanthropy initiative.
The 4W Initiative—Working Within

an Institutional Setting
Another example of developing women’s philanthropy within higher educa-
tion is 4W, Women and Well-Being in Wisconsin and the World, a
program created by Martha Taylor, former vice-president at the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin-Madison Foundation, and five leaders from the university.
When asked about the need for such an organization Taylor explained,
“Fund development departments within universities are organized primarily
by school or college affiliation and development officers are rewarded for
securing money for their unit, not for advancing women’s causes or diversity
issues. Activist women interested in creating social change don’t view higher
education as cutting edge enough to impact women, even though seeding
162 L. A. Buntz
research, teaching, policy work, and leadership development can help advance
women and society as a whole. This creates a double bind” (Taylor, personal
4W seeks to reconcile these competing forces, working with faculty, staff,
and students across campus to bring innovative research to practice and
good practice to scale. The programs range from ending human trafficking
to promoting women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics,
medicine (STEMM) to supporting rural women artisans. 4W has helped
UW-Madison become a leading voice on gender and well-being. This model
could be replicated at other educational institutions especially during and
after the challenging times of COVID-19. 4W has attracted new donors
to both its program and the university, demonstrating the meaningful role
that women’s initiatives can play in supporting women while advancing the
university’s mission of contributing to the greater good. Taylor concludes,
“Higher education and other major institutions in society can be women’s
most powerful social change partners to make meaningful advancements for
women and gender equality in society. Development officers must partner
with their institutions to create programs to both attract women donors and
make real social change” (Taylor, personal communication, March 24, 2020).
Suggestions for Fundraisers Working in Higher

Education
1. When recruiting women donors who are alumnae, highlight what the
institution is doing to help advance women.
2. Create a partnership with faculty to create new programs that address
social issues impacting women.
3. Fund a scholarship program for women who want advanced degrees in
nontraditional fields or where women are underrepresented.
4. Raise money and recruit donors to endow a faculty position for women
scholars or an adminstrative position.
5. Organize a group of donors who are “like minded” and pool gifts to create
a larger impact, organize a women’s giving circle, or women’s learning
about philanthropy.
Environment
In most of the countries of the world today women remain intimately tied to
their environments doing the majority of farming and domestic food produc-
tion. Efforts to improve these women’s lives by improving the conditions of
their labors and the environmental issues with which they interact have been
in progress for hundreds of years. Yet in the U.S., women’s involvement with
environmental issues didn’t begin until the early twentieth century, and inter-
estingly, were then focused on urban issues related to sanitation, coal smoke,
noise reduction, and other problems related to living in cities.
The first American women involved in environmental activism were upper
and middle-class women like social worker and philanthropist Jane Addams
(1860–1935), and physician, research scientist, expert in the field of occupa-
tional health and pioneer in the field of industrial toxicology, Alice Hamilton
(1869–1970) for whom the American Society for Environmental History
has named its annual award for the best article published outside their
Environmental History journal. Perhaps the most famous of all-American
environmentalists is Rachel Carson (1907–1964) whose book Silent Spring
spurred a reversal in national pesticide policy which led to a nationwide ban
on DDT and other pesticides and “inspired a grassroots environmental move-
ment that led to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency”
(Paull, 2013, p. 3).
Increased awareness and media attention on a plethora of environmental
issues suggests that the environment is a sector of women’s philanthropy
that will continue to grow for a number of reasons. First, very limited
philanthropy is occurring; less than 1% of international philanthropy goes
to women’s environmental initiatives (Odendahl, 2019). And only 4–6% of
Western philanthropy goes to the environment (Campden Wealth Limited &
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, 2020). Secondly, women’s land owner-
ship and connection to environment will increase; an estimated 70% of U.S.
farmland will change hands over the next two decades and 75% of that
land will go to women (Heggen, 2018, p. 14). As women gain more access
to property, income and inheritance, they will become influential decision-
makers. Thirdly, organizations like Rachel’s Network, named in honor of
Rachel Carson, have successfully promoted women’s giving and distributed
$2 million since 2000 toward strategic partnerships investing in women
leaders and solutions. Their members occupy 100 director positions on
boards of major environmental organizations (Rachel’s Network, 2015). And
Women for the Land, a nonprofit affiliated with the American Farmland
Trust, is launching women landowners’ learning circles with great success
164 L. A. Buntz
increasing the number of women who are learning about conservation and
environmental issues (American Farmland Trust, 2021). Finally, Millennial
donors rate the environment their third-highest interest area for giving.
Giving to environmental issues has lagged behind other types of philan-
thropy partly because these issues have become so politicized. But now
individual donors are starting to step in and step up. In the past forty years,
world-renowned primatologist and anthropologist Jane Goodall has been
one of the most ardent advocates of wildlife, plants, environment, and a
generous philanthropist supporting nearly twenty charities, including Heifer
International, Live Earth, Amazon Conservation Team, and Best Friends
Animal Society. As a scientist, explorer and writer, she has demonstrated that
raising awareness and advocating for environmentally friendly legislation is
important.
Liz Simon with her husband, Mark Heising, have used her father’s hedge
fund winnings to bankroll advocacy on climate change. They teamed up with
Bloomberg Philanthropies to give $48 million to the Obama administration’s
efforts to regulate greenhouse gases (Callahan, 2017, p. 174).
Roxanne Quimby, co-founder of Burt’s Bees, donated 87,500 acres of land
and millions of dollars to reforest and return to wilderness land in Maine’s
North Woods that used to feed paper mills. It is now permanently protected
as Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument (Wang, 2017).
The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation has been another large donor
to environmental causes. Gordon is a scientist and co-founder of Intel.
Betty has had a life-long interest in patient care and helped establish the
Betty Irene Moore Nursing Initiative in California. Their Foundation has
distributed more than a thousand grants totaling more than $4.5 billion
(Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, 2020). Their environmental projects
include helping conserve 170 million hectares in the Amazon and protecting
marine ecosystems in the North American Artic. The Moores clearly artic-
ulate their desire to invest in conservation and believe that global climate
change may be one of the most important challenges of our times. “The
Foundation’s ability to take risks and make long-term and relatively large
commitments should allow it to undertake challenges not accessible to many
other organizations. We seek durable change, not simply delaying conse-
quences for a short time,” said Gordon and Betty (Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation, 2020).
Another example of women donors and environmental advocacy is the
story of Women of the Storm chronicled by author Emmanuel David, assistant
professor of women and gender studies at University of Colorado, Boulder.
David captures the history of how a few privileged white women in New
Orleans used their power to create an interracial alliance that effectively

pressured members of Congress to invest in the city and coastal regions
revival. The book captures the power of women’s activism and demonstrates
how political coalitions can be developed across gender, racial, social, and
economic class.
Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Women of the Storm was created
by women whose families, businesses, and lives had been affected. Led by
twelve women and supported by 130 diverse individuals this nonpolitical
alliance met weekly to promote legislation, advocacy, and programs. After
months of limited activity and support from the state and federal govern-
ment, they invited state and national legislators to see the destruction. The
women successfully advocated for the Coastal Protection and Restoration
Fund and won approval from the Louisiana legislature. Years later they advo-
cated again and were successful in getting the Obama administration to sign
the RESTORE, Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability Tourist Opportuni-
ties and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast State Act. As a result, 80%
of the civil penalties paid in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill were deposited into a trust fund for programs and projects that protect
the environment of the Gulf Coast. Women leaders and activists proved
that collaborations, partnerships, and determination can result in public and
private support for the environment.
Small agencies and small donors also participate in environmental giving.
Trees Forever, an environmental nonprofit, was founded thirty-one years ago
by Shannon Ramsey. Over the course of three decades, this organization has
helped plant three million trees and shrubs throughout Iowa and Illinois.
Now, Ramsey wants to expand her donor base and include more women.
After a devastating derecho in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on August 10, 2020, that
destroyed 75% of the city’s tree canopy, Ramsey established a campaign goal
of $10–15 million to fund the replanting of trees in the community.
Winona LaDuke
Winona LaDuke is a force in the field of environmental advocacy and
philanthropy. A Harvard graduate and member of the Ojibwe Mississippi
Band Anishinaabeg, she moved to the White Earth Ojibwe reservation in
Minnesota after graduation in 1982 and became principal of the reservation
high school. Although she did not grow up on the reservation, she quickly
became interested in a variety of issues impacting the Native population and
in 1985 established the Indigenous Women’s Network focused on increasing
166 L. A. Buntz
the visibility of Native women and encouraging them to get involved in the
political process (Brandman, 2021).
Her advocacy continued when she began to read about the Nelson Act
of 1887, a treaty that limited how much communal land was given to each
Ojibwe household and allowed the surplus land to be purchased by non-
Native people. By 1920, 99% of the original White Earth Reservation land
was in non-Indian hands (Walljasper, 2012). LaDuke began advocating for
returning the lands promised to her people by joining a lawsuit that unfor-
tunately was dismissed after four years of litigation. As a result of that defeat,
she established the White Earth Land Recovery Project (WELRP), one of
the largest reservation-based nonprofits in the country. Leveraging her own
philanthropic power, she used the proceeds from a human rights award
($20,000) she had received from Reebok to fund WELRP’s mission to buy
back land that had been purchased by non-Natives. By 2000, the foundation
had bought 1,200 acres which are held in a conservation trust (Walljasper,
2012).
In 2000, LaDuke ran on the Green Party ticket as vice-president and in
2007 she was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame. Today she
is the program director of Honor the Earth Fund, a national advocacy group
seeking to create support and funding for Native environmental groups.
LaDuke has been very successful at establishing partnerships with other foun-
dations and community groups as well as using her celebrity status to create
interest and money from other donors.
Women donors are not alone in their quest for environmental advo-
cacy; major foundations have pledged support and resources to study the
climate, disasters, health, and science. Most recently the Adrienne Arsht-
Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center announced a commitment to reach
one billion people with resilience solutions to climate change, migration,
and human security challenges by 2030 (Atlantic Council Annual Report,
2020). And, numerous civic organizations and nonprofits, many of them led
by women, advocate, donate and influence policy: Rachel’s Network, The
Garden Club of America, Women’s Environment and Development Orga-
nization, Women’s Environmental Action, Women’s Earth Alliance, Women
for the Land-American Farmland Trust, Global Greengrants Fund, and
ecowomen, an organization that promotes and supports women to become
leaders across environmental careers, are just a few of them.

in Environment
Advocates for women’s philanthropy and the environment can invest in
a wide range of programs and initiatives on a local, regional, national, and
global level. There are a number of ways fundraisers can help guide women
who have an interest in this sector to practice philanthropy and to find
resources for their own organizations:
1. More than 125 different foundations are listed on the Inside Philanthropy
website as supporters of conservation. Women’s initiatives can apply
for funding from these foundations, influence their decision-making by
connecting to their leaders, and providing valuable information to them
about environmental causes. Fundraisers in environmental nonprofits
need to find allies among these HNW funders and capture their attention.
On a local level, it may be a connection to the community foundation for
grants to pursue land preservation, tree planting, clean water, environment
restorations, or disaster recoveries.
2. One of the advantages of gifts to environmental causes is that many times
there is something tangible to view and touch. It’s easier to engage a donor
if she can see the results of her gift. For example, Bette Midler founded
the New York Restoration Project in 1995 to beautify New York City
through transforming open spaces, renovating parks and gardens (New
York Restoration, 2021). In 2001, Betty Brown Casey pledged $35 million
to restore the tree canopy in the District of Columbia and helped estab-
lish Casey Trees, a foundation that carries on the work of planting and
caring for trees (DCGov, 2015). While connecting with high-powered
celebrities isn’t highly probable, you can find philanthropists in your
community invested in the environment and encourage them to donate
land, connect with state legislators, write articles, or make financial contri-
butions. For example, a local philanthropist and millionaire has invested
considerable resources in restoring the Monarch butterfly population in
Iowa using his farm as an incubation site, hosting fundraising campaigns,
engaging school classes, Master Gardener programs, and numerous other
civic groups in the work.
3. Connect with women who work in the agricultural industry, forestry,
public gardens, parks, green spaces, or water quality, and with female
teachers in these fields at community colleges and Land Grant institutions
and invite them to learn about philanthropy.
168 L. A. Buntz
4. Create giving circles for cause-specific environmental issues or disaster

relief.
5. Some activists work primarily on systems change. On a local level, there
are issues unique to each community—find yours. For example, in New
Orleans, a social innovation and entrepreneurial nonprofit, Propeller,
collaborated with educational institutions, government agencies, and local
neighborhoods to develop water management initiatives post-Katrina
(Flandez, 2020).
Fundraisers and community organizers can collectively find new ways for
philanthropists to use their financial and political power to create change.
Look at the issues facing your community, and ask yourself, “How could
environmental advocates and donors help?” Although environmental causes
may not be the first choice for many women philanthropists, it is an area
that will continue to grow in popularity and need. If our environment is
going to sustain us, our families, children and communities, the time is now
for fundraisers to help women to consider environmental causes as another
philanthropic opportunity.
Bibliography
American Association of Long-Term Care Insurance. (2009–2021). Long-Term care-
important information for women. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://www.
aaltci.org/long-term-care-insurance/learning-center/for-women.php
American Farmland Trust. (2021). Women for the Land. Retrieved July 6, 2021,
from https://farmland.org/project/women-for-the-land/
Atlantic Council Annual Report. (2020, July 21). Retrieved December
2, 2020, from https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/
2019annual-report-adrienne-arsht-rockefeller-foundation-resilience-center/
Brandman, M. (2021). National Women’s History Museum. Winona LaDuke.
Retrieved May 28, 2021, from https://www.womenshistory.org/education
resources/biographies/winona-laduke
Callahan, D. (2017). The givers. New York, p. 174.
CAMH celebrates the launch of womenmind. (2020, March). Retrieved April
1, 2020, from https://www.camh.ca/en/camh-news-and-stories/camh-celebrates-
the-launch-of-womenmind
Campden Wealth Limited & Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. (2020). Global
trends and strategic time horizons in family philanthropy. p. 24.
DCGov, Department of Energy and Environment Case Study. (2015). Casey trees.
Retrieved January 3, 2021, from https://doee.dc.gov/service/case-study-casey-
trees
DeBoskey, B. (2017). Higher education philanthropy. Wealth Management. Retrieved

February 2, 2020, from https://www.wealthmanagement.com/philanthropy/
higher-education-philanthropy
Duffin, E. (2020, March 31). Percentage of the U.S. population who have
completed four years of college or more from 1940–2019 by gender. Statista.
Family Caregiver Alliance. (2016). Caregiver Statistics: Demographics. Retrieved
June 11, 2021, from https://www.caregiver.org/resource/caregiver-statistics-
demographics
Flandez, R. (2020, August 17). Voice from the Gulf. Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Giving USA. (2020). Charitable giving showed solid growth, climbing to 449.64
billion in 2019, one of the highest years on record . Retrieved June 11, 2021, from
https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2020-charitable-giving-showed-solid-growth-
climbing-to-449-64-billion-in-2019-one-of-the-highest-years-for-giving-on-
record
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. (2020). Retrived July 30, 2020 from https://
www.moore.org/
Heggen, K. (2018). A woman’s place. Iowa Natural Heritage Magazine. Summer,
p. 14.
Heller, K. (2016, July 4). At 92, Irene Pollin tells her story spares no details. The
Washington Post. Retrieved April 16, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.
com/lifestyle/style/at-92-irene-pollin-tells-her-story-and-spares-no-details/2016/
07/04/5c2cc4aa-3ca78-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html
Jones, R. (2019). Miami business school receives a new name to honor philan-
thropist. News at the U, Miami Magazine, 10–15–19. Retrieved March 3, 2021,
from https://news.miami.edu/stories/2019/10/miami-business-school-receives-a-
new-name-to-honor-philanthropists.html
Marcus, J. (2017, August 8). Why men are the new college minority. U.S.
Department of Education. The Atlantic.
New York Restoration Project. (2021). Retrieved February 21, 2021, from https://
www.nyrp.org/
Odendahl, T. (2019, October). How funders are stepping up: Women and environ-
ment. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Retrieved December
4, 2020, from https://www.ncrp/201/how-funders-are-stepping-up-women-and-
the-environment
OHSU. (2001–2020). Center for Women’s Health. Women who inspire us: Melinda
Gates. Retrieved June 2, 2021, from https://www.ohsu/womens-health/women-
who-inspire-us-melinda-gates
Paull, J. (2013, July). The Rachel Carson letters and the making of Silent Spring.
Sage Open, 3, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1177/215824401349461
Philanthropy Roundtable. (2021). Women’s history month spotlight: The scientist: Lyda
Hill . Retrieved April 20, 2021, from https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/
10-exceptional-women
Rachel’s Network. (2015). Opening doors. 2013 Annual Report. https://rachels
network.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2015/01/AR2013.small_pdf
170 L. A. Buntz
Raphael, R. (2019, January 14). Here’s why we need more women in health
care leadership. Fast Company. Retrieved June 11, 2021, from https://www.fast
company.com/90291711/heres-why-we-need-more-women-in-healthcare-
leadership
Rendon, J., & Di Mento, M., (2020, February). Billion-dollar giving streak.
Chronicle of Philanthropy, 8–30.
Redden E. (2021). A fairy godmother for once overlooked colleges. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved June 11, 2021, from https://www.inside-higher-education.com/news/
2021/01/04/mackenzie-scott-surprises-hbcus-tribal-colleges-and-community-
colleges-multimillion
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2016, September 13). Risa Lavizzo-Mourney
stepping down as President and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Retrieved April 1, 2020, from https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/articles-and-news/
2016/09/rlm-stepping-down.html
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2001–2021). Retrieved June 13, 2021, from
https://www.rwjf.org
Stiffman, E., & Haynes, E. (2019, November 9). America’s favorite charities 2019:
Can the boom times last? Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Turner, B. K. (2019, March 29). Though more women are on college campuses,
climbing the professor ladder remains a challenge. Brown Center Chalkboard.
Walljasper, J. (2012, May 16). Our home is on earth. On the Commons. Retrieved
February 1, 2021, from https://www.onthecommons.prg/magazine/our-home-
earth
Wang, J. (2017, October 24). Burt’s Bees Co-founder on why she gave away 87,000
acres in Main. Forbes.
Wentz, K.G. (2017). Women responsible for most health decisions in
the home. Oregon Health and Science University News. Retrieved May
25, 2020, from https://news.ohsu.edu/2017/05/11/women-responsible-for-most-
health-decisions-in-the-home
Wittenberg-Cox, A. (2020, April 13). What do countries with the best coronavirus
responses have in common? Women leaders. Forbes. 2020. Retrieved June
13, 2021, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2020/04/
13/what-do-countries-with-the-best-coronavirus-responses-have-in-common-
women-leaders/
12
Achievements: Women Investing in Business
and Leadership
Investing in Women-Owned Businesses

In addition to healthcare, higher education, and the environment, supporting
the development of women-owned businesses and leadership programs
designed for women are rich fields of endeavor for professional fundraisers.
Let’s consider some inspirational examples.
Nancy Hayes spent almost twenty years as a senior executive at IBM and
had the promise of a long-term career. She remembers distinctly when her
superiors offered her a job managing the Southeast Asia operations. Although
flattered, she said to herself, “Maybe it’s time to leave. I enjoyed my career at
IBM, but I had a sense of wanting to feel that my work had more direct
impact on people’s lives” (Hayes, personal communication, December 17,
2018).
She pursued nonprofit work, accepting a position to lead the STAR-
BRIGHT Foundation, an innovative nonprofit charity serving children
with serious physical and mental health issues, chaired by film director
Steven Spielberg and General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. This introduction to
nonprofit work was followed by an opportunity to serve as the CEO and Pres-
ident of WISE Senior Services in Los Angeles. Her experience in nonprofit
and for-profit work caught the attention of San Francisco State University
and in 2005 she was recruited to be the Dean of the College of Business.
Eventually she became Chief Administrative Officer of the university.
How to put all those great experiences to work as she thought about
the third phase of her life was a new challenge. “I knew that many

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_12
172 L. A. Buntz
women who owned small businesses were underfunded and couldn’t pay
me for consulting, so a former IBM colleague and I developed a rewards-
based crowdfunding site called Moola Hoop and eventually I drifted into
angel investing in women-led start-ups” (Hayes, personal communication,
December 17, 2018). Numerous studies support Hayes’s observation that
women entrepreneurs have a very difficult time getting investment revenue.
• In a study conducted in 2017 at the Tech Crunch Disrupt New York

funding competition, male-led start-ups raised five times more funding
than female-led ones (Kanze et al., 2017).
• Only 8% of venture capital firms in the U.S. have female partners
(DuBow & Pruitt, 2017).
• In 2018 only 3% of venture capital in the U.S. went to companies with a
female CEO (Hassan et al., 2020).
• The International Women’s Entrepreneurial Challenge Foundation
(IWEC) found that women entrepreneurs get only 2% of all venture
funding despite owning 39% of all businesses in the U.S. (Kanze, 2019).
• According to All In: Women in the VX Ecosystem 2019 by Pitchbook and All
Raise, only 12% of venture capital decision-makers in the U.S. are women
(Stengl, 2020).
Why is it so difficult to get financial support for women-owned busi-

nesses? One reason may be that women don’t promise the moon to investors
or expound on aspirational possibilities. While men are willing to make big
statements by painting visionary pictures, women come off as less exciting
or confident. Numerous studies have proven that women are asked different
questions by investors and are treated differently. This is particularly evident
in an analysis of how investors view entrepreneurs making their “pitch” for
investment funding.
Pitch events are opportunities for entrepreneurs to give short, informative
talks about their companies, or products, and to present their business cases
and needs for funds. Dana Kanze, a Ph.D. from Columbia University, and
Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at the London Business School
analyzed pitch presentations and the questions asked by both male and female
investors. She found that women were asked more “prevention questions,”
those focused on safety, responsibility, and security. Male entrepreneurs were
asked more “promotion questions,” those focused on gains, hopes, accom-
plishments and advancements. Male entrepreneurs were asked promotion
questions 67% of the time while women were asked prevention questions
66% of the time (Kanze, 2019).
12 Achievements: Women Investing in Business and Leadership 173
So, one piece of advice for women business owners seeking venture capital
is, “ditch the pitch,” don’t participate in these pitch events until the panel of
judges is better educated, less biased, and more informed about women-led
businesses.
Since her transition to angel investing, Hayes has invested in twenty-
three women-led companies. Her philanthropy is the pro bono work she
does consulting with women-owned businesses and women entrepreneurs in
pitching their companies, working with organizations that support women
entrepreneurs and founders of color, as well as executive coaching of women
leaders in for-profit companies, and career coaching for women in nonprofit
organizations. Additionally, she works to bring other women into angel
investing. “Women enjoy being part of an investing community. They are
more comfortable when they can join a group, get educated together, talk
with each other, compare notes and maybe invest together” (Hayes, personal
The importance of female investment decision-makers cannot be over-
stated; women are twice as likely to invest in female founders as are their
male counterparts, and the number of venture investment firms aimed at
women has been growing steadily. Their achievements are teaching us how
to engage women as investors, and how to grow women-led businesses. In
2014, for example, entrepreneur Anu Duggal founded The Female Founders
Fund, a venture capital firm dedicated to funding new tech-related companies
created by women. Through previous experience launching two businesses in
India, Duggal discovered the challenges of creating a fund that would offer
access to capital for female-owned businesses and create a base of operators
who could advise and help women starting companies, particularly those in
the technology industry. It took 700 meetings over a two-year period to raise
$6 million. One key strategy was asking for introductions to other inter-
ested parties when an investor turned her down. Doing so helped her build
a large, effective network of funders. Her first major achievement was the
company Eloquii, retail clothing for plus-size women, which was acquired
by Walmart for a reported $100 million (Chafkin, 2019). With her partner,
Sutian Dong, a second phase of funding scored $27 million from well-known
investors Melinda Gates, Stitch Fix CEO Katrina Lake, and Girls Who Code
Founder, Reshma Saujani.
Another venture capital firm, Golden Seeds Venture, was one of the first
angel groups to invest exclusively in women-led businesses. Golden Seeds
helps early-stage founders with diverse management teams, expecting that at
least one woman is in executive management “the C suite.” Nancy Hayes
served as the Managing Director of the Silicon Valley/San Francisco chapter
174 L. A. Buntz
of the Golden Seeds angel group for three years. Now, running four venture
funds with six U.S. locations, it has 275 members, 170 companies, and has
invested more than $120 million since 2005.
In addition to raising capital and launching businesses that help women
succeed, the achievements of these venture fund firms changes the narrative
about women’s ability to develop and grow companies. HNW women donors
who are focused on growing women-led businesses may find this type of
investment aligning with their interests. They can offer advice, mentor, serve
on committees, help vet new businesses, or start an investment group. Many
successful women with backgrounds in finance, marketing, investments, or
business management are great candidates for these types of contributions.
Suggestions for Fundraisers—Creating

Partnerships with Women Investors
1. Survey and list the number and types of women-owned businesses and
women start-ups in your area.
2. Partner with your local entrepreneurial center offering to match up
women donors with women who are starting businesses. Consider it a
mentoring program.
3. Partner with local business schools, specifically MBA programs that have
women students and faculty and have them share skills with women
entrepreneurs.
4. Gather women donors who have an interest in economic development
and consider starting an investment group, including investment advisors.
5. Host a start-up contest with all the winners receiving grants or in-kind
support.
6. Work with your local chamber of commerce or state economic develop-
ment program to get their financial support for women-owned businesses.
7. Feature women-owned businesses in your newsletter, web page and news
outlets.
Women in Leadership—Corporate Boards—How

Women Lead
Another way women donors can be involved in philanthropy is through
volunteer engagement and participation on corporate boards. The following
statistics reflect the sobering story of the disproportionate participation of

women in the top echelon of the economic sector.
• In 2016, Fortune 500 companies reported that only 6% of women held

board chair roles (Whitler & Henretta, 2018).
• The number of women on boards of directors in the Russell 3000 index
increased from 15% in 2016 to only 20.2% by 2019 (Stych, 2019).
• Every company in the S&P 500 has a woman on its board of directors, but
they make up only 27% of all board seats (Stych, 2019).
Recruiting more women to serve on corporate boards has been a passion of

Julie Castro Abrams, the founder and CEO of How Women Lead. Recently
described as one of San Francisco’s QueenMakers, women power brokers who
are making it happen in the community and world, Abrams has developed
an ecosystem approach to her work with women philanthropists and leaders
(Poblete, 2019). Organized under three flagship programs, How Women
Lead, How Women Invest and How Women Give, the organization’s goals
include: influence legislation that impacts women’s representation on corpo-
rate boards, train and place more women on corporate boards, recruit women
venture capitalists to invest in women-owned businesses, and provide grants
to programs for women and girls through philanthropic endeavors including
a giving circle. “There is a hunger for women to be connected to each other,”
says Abrams, and all this great work takes money.
Abrams’ achievements include a successful legislative campaign in Cali-
fornia to get asset management firms to require companies they invest
in to have at least two women on their board (Castro Abrams, personal
Abrams works diligently to broker requests from corporate boards for
women members. She says that there is still a lot of unconscious bias about
women’s qualifications and abilities to serve on boards recalling the board
chair of a large insurance company saying, “I’d love to talk to you about
putting a woman on our board, but she has to be qualified.”
“The fact that he thinks there aren’t any qualified women in insurance who
could serve, just makes me crazy!” exclaimed Abrams. “He thinks he has good
intentions, he thinks he’s on the right side of the issue, but he has a bias and
isn’t even aware of it.”
Another director of a publicly held company called Abrams asking for
some women board candidates. She found twelve women in two weeks and
when he saw the list he replied, “I could replace everyone on my board
176 L. A. Buntz
with these women; they would all be more qualified than my current board
members.”
Getting women on corporate boards is a multi-layer process: getting the
first woman on boards, getting more than one woman on a board, and
moving those women into roles of influence or leadership as committee and
board chairs (Whitler & Henretta, 2018). To support and prepare women for
board leadership, How Women Lead offers training and education. Charging
for such training helps fund some of the work, but Abrams admits they need
more strong supporters and philanthropists. “Women need to help other
women. At our organization we have a credo - we need to connect each other,
move the needle for the good for all women, and be unabashedly visible.” She
suggests the following five tips for women who want to get on boards.
1. Define your value proposition and practice telling it with a memorable

story so people remember you.
2. Be specific about what board role you can play (search firms are typically
tasked with finding someone for one of the key committees).
3. Identify 5–10 company boards you would like to serve on and tell people
the specific board you would like to support.
4. Reach out and build connections with leaders on the board and C-Suite
in the companies you would like to serve.
5. Be of value to recruiters and others with recommendations (Castro
Abrams, personal communication, December 3, 2019).
How Women Lead pairs philanthropists with nonprofits who serve women
and girls. In the past several years, it has funded multiple programs for women
and children in the Bay Area including Prospera, a Latina economic empow-
erment program, Women’s Recovery Services for alcohol and drug treatment
and Love Never Fails, a program for the homeless and prevention of domestic
violence. In addition to all this, Abrams trains women to be angel investors
in women-owned businesses. Currently, she is working on putting together a
$10 million-dollar fund.
Developing Women’s Leadership Through

Training—Women Lead Change
Increasing women’s leadership skills and abilities is a part of women’s philan-
thropy. Building women’s confidence and encouraging them to take on
leadership positions in economic, social and political sectors and to mentor
younger women as donors and leaders in their communities builds a pipeline

for the future. One women’s leadership training program that has had a
number of notable achievements is Women Lead Change.
Launched in 2006 by Donna Katen-Bahensky, the CEO of the University
of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and a small, dedicated group of volunteers, it
began as a conference for women offering education, training, and support.
The concept was to create a venue that would be high quality, exciting, and
informative by bringing well-known women leaders to the community to
share their knowledge, stories, advice, and to help develop women in their
professional careers.
After the initial launch, the conferences that followed included a vast array
of famous and accomplished national speakers including: Maya Angelou,
Diana Nyad, Marian Wright Edelman, Arianna Huffington, Suze Orman,
Betsy Myers, Tina Brown, Gloria Steinem and Barbara Corcoran, to name
a few. To fund a conference of this magnitude, the all-women-led planning
committee created a successful strategy to sell cost-efficient corporate spon-
sorships, promoted company brands, and helped build leadership training for
female employees. Annual conferences grew to more than 1,000 attendees.
Company CEOs realized that at a fraction of the cost of more tradi-
tional training, their female employees could learn from women who were
leaders in journalism, sports, politics, universities, corporations, art, and
film. Obtaining hundreds of thousands of dollars in sponsorships was a
major accomplishment that funded the conferences and made money for the
nonprofit.
After several years of being managed by volunteers, Women Lead Change
hired Diane Ramsey in 2010 as executive director. A woman Chief Finan-
cial Officer at Rockwell Collins, a large aerospace company, convinced the
company to underwrite Ramsey’s position for three years to help launch the
nonprofit. Within six years Ramsey took the organization to a new level
including the following achievements: expanding conferences across the state,
bringing men on the board of directors, establishing a CEO forum for men
and women to talk about the value of advancing women at all levels of their
organizations, especially senior management; recruiting women to corporate
boards, developing a student track to encourage young women in their career
paths, funding conference scholarships for students and general attendees,
launching pitch events for women start-ups and partnering with the Iowa
Governor Kim Reynolds to establish the EPIC challenge to get more women
on corporate boards and into leadership positions.
Today, Tiffany O’Donnell runs the organization that has grown to eight
staff with a budget of more than $2.7 million. More than 19,000 women
178 L. A. Buntz
and men have attended the conferences. The organization now funds crit-
ical research on topics ranging from workplace equity to imposter syndrome,
facilitates the Women Connect networking and development program, and
offers the 12-month virtual Ascent leadership program, designed to support
mid-level, high potential, “pipeline” leaders.
Bibliography
Chafkin, L. C. (2019, January 15). Anu Duggal’s female founders fund scored a
multi-million dollar exit: Male investors are finally paying attention. Inc Maga-
zine. Retrieved June 10, 2020, from https://www.inc.com/christine-lagorio/anu-
duggal-female-founders-fund-founders-project.html
DuBow, W., & Pruitt, A. S. (2017, September 18). The comprehensive case for
investing more VC money in women-led start-ups. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved April 5, 2020, from https://hbr.org/2017/09/the-comprehensive-case-
for-investing-more-vc-money-in-women-led-startups
Hassan, K., Varadan, M., & Zeisberger, C. (2020, January 13). How the VC pitch
process is failing female entrepreneurs. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved June
28, 2020, from https://hbr.org/2020/01/how-the-pitch-process-is-failing-female-
entrepreneurs
Kanze, D. (2019, January 24). TED talk. IWEC Foundation.
Kanze, D., Conley, M. A., Higgins, T. E., & Huang, L. (2017, June 27).
Male and female entrepreneurs get asked different questions by VC’s and
it affects how much funding they get. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved
March 29, 2020, from https://hbr.org/2017/06/male-and-female-entrepreneurs-
get-asked-different-questions-by-vcs-and-it-affects-how-much-funding-they-get
Pobleto, P. N. (2019, November 17). Meet the bay area’s pivotal power brokers: The
queenmakers. The San Francisco Magazine. Retrieved January 13, 2021, from
https://sanfran.com/queenmakers-reshaping-politics-and-the-boardroom
Stengl, G. (2020, January 1). The next decade will bring more venture capital to
female founders. Forbes. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/
sites/geristengel/2020/01/01/the-next-decade-will-bring-more-venture-capital-to-
female-founder/
Stych, A. (2019, September 12). Women’s representation on boards reaches a
milestone. Biz Women’s Business Journal . Retrieved September 12, 2019, from
https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2019/09/womens-rep
resentation-on-boards-reaches-a.html?Page=all
Whitler, K., & Henretta, D. (2018). Why the influence of women on boards still
lags. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved November 4, 2019, from https://
sloanreview.mit.edu/article/why-the-influence-of-women-on-boards-still-lags/
13
New Trends in Women’s Philanthropy
As fundraisers and organizations across the globe continue to work in the field
of women’s philanthropic initiatives, new trends, innovations, and exciting
connections happen every day. Some of these are emerging in existing
nonprofits, others are collaborations with for-profit-partners, HNW philan-
thropists, and women’s foundations. Several areas of emerging trends will be
explored in this chapter, including impact and gender lens investing, LLCs
as an alternative to family foundations, and global initiatives that attract and
engage women donors.
Impact Investing
The Rockefeller Foundation introduced the term “impact investing” in 2007
when it convened leaders in the field of finance, philanthropy, and develop-
ment with the aim of building the investing for impact industry (Kanani,
2012). Impact investments have a dual purpose: deliver financial returns
while creating social and environmental benefits. Scholars Paul Brest and
Kelly Born call it “actively placing capital in enterprises that generate social
and environmental goods, services or ancillary benefits such as creating good
jobs, with expected financial returns ranging from the highly concessionary
to above market” (Brest & Born, 2013). In other words, a middle ground
between philanthropy and traditional financial investments. Philanthropists

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_13
180 L. A. Buntz
can be impact investors, but their contributions are not considered philan-
thropy because a financial return is expected. Examples of impact investing
include micro-finance loans, healthcare research, investing in women-owned
businesses, environmental projects, or social impact bonds. Defining “social
impact” and “returns” varies considerably. Some investment organizations
focus more heavily on impact while others emphasize returns.
Today, there are several emerging groups of impact investors. One of the
largest is the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN), a membership orga-
nization of more than 20,000 individuals and organizations that promotes
impact investing through metrics, data, a global directory, and media events.
GIIN manages $239 billion in assets (Mudaliar et al., 2019). The impact
investing market is diverse including foundations, fund managers, financial
institutions, and family offices. More than 50% of the participants in the
GIIN 2019 Survey target social and environmental impact objectives.
One well-known impact investor is Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Prize
winner and founder of the famous Grameen Bank, which in 1976 was
designed as a credit delivery system to provide banking services to the rural
poor of Bangladesh. As of January 2011, borrowers totaled 8.4 million, 97%
of whom were women. The repayment rate was nearly 98% compared to that
of the U.S. banking sector’s 96% (Kowalik & Miera-Martinex, 2010). The
difference in repayment rates may seem small, but consider the vast differ-
ences in the population of borrowers for Grameen and the U.S. banking
sector. Grameen Bank continued to expand its services by establishing a U.S.
presence, Grameen America, in 2008. Previously, it relied strictly on philan-
thropic donations, but in 2018, on its ten-year anniversary, Grameen America
announced its foray into impact investing by establishing an $11 million
Social Business Fund providing additional money to nearly 100,000 women
entrepreneurs (Field, 2018). Large-scale investment funds like these offer
opportunities for women to act as investors, recipients, and philanthropists.
As the field of impact investing continues to grow, philanthropy profes-
sionals are studying who is interested in these concepts and why; most
importantly, are women interested and engaged in opportunities to invest in
social good? Morgan Stanley, the well-known wealth management firm, has
conducted two surveys of 1,000 investors gauging their interest in sustainable
investing , that is investments in companies or funds that target social and
environmental outcomes. In 2015, the first survey found that 76% of women
compared to 62% of men show an overwhelming interest in socially respon-
sible and impact investing (Morgan Stanley, 2015). When the survey was
repeated in 2017, women’s receptivity to sustainable investing had grown to
84% versus men at 67%. Fifty-six percent of women focus at least partially on
making a positive impact with their investments versus 45% of men. Millen-
nials have even higher levels of interest, ranging from 84 to 86% (Morgan
Stanley, 2017). And 40% of women versus 36% of men were integrating
sustainability into their investment decisions (Morgan Stanley, 2017).
Women Impact Investors

If women’s philanthropy initiatives are going to capitalize on this emerging
trend, it is essential that we understand what motivates women to become
impact investors. What is the profile of an investor? A report analyzing the
results of the Bank of America/U.S. Trust Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy
series found that three factors influence impact investing action for HNW
philanthropists (households with annual income of at least $200,000 or net
worth of at least $1 million, excluding the value of their primary home):
education, level of income, and age (Osili et al., 2018).
Men and women had nearly the same levels of awareness of impact
investing: but women are more likely to want to learn more. Those with
at least a bachelor’s degree were statistically significantly more likely to
impact invest and two out of five women with college degrees participated in
impact investing, a statistically significantly higher percentage than similarly
educated men (Osili et al., 2018, p. 15). Thus, identifying college-educated
women as prospects could be a primary strategy for fundraisers and investors.
Income level is the second factor influencing investments. As women’s
incomes grow, they are more willing to take financial risks and having dispos-
able income allows them to explore a wider range of investments (Osili et al.,
2018, p. 14). Women participate in impact more often than men at all three
levels of HNW (<$200,000 annually, $200,000–$500,000 and > $500,000),
but the biggest difference is for those with annual incomes between $200,000
and $500,000 a year (Osili et al., 2018).
Age is the third factor influencing action in impact investments. Individ-
uals surveyed were the Silent Generation (1925–1945), the Baby Boomers
(1946–1964), Generation X (1965–1979), and Millennials (1980–2000).
Baby Boomer women have participated in impact investing at a higher rate
than Boomer men. Gen X and millennials men were more likely to partic-
ipate in impact investing than women, but not at a statistically significant
level (men 45.1%, women 40.1%) (Osili et al., 2018). Gen X and millen-
nial women donors participated at a higher rate than Baby Boomer women
(40.1% compared to 37.7%).
182 L. A. Buntz
Although the sweet spot for fund development/investment professionals

who want to attract women investors is college-educated, older women with
HNW, women’s philanthropy and investment initiatives must proactively
engage women of all ages and income levels. Impact investing is a door to
younger donors, especially those who are not yet HNW individuals.
There are impact investment opportunities for women who are not high
net worth donors. The Colorado Women’s Foundation has started an impact
investing giving circle, the first in the country. Focused on cultivating women
entrepreneurs, women of color and women in rural areas, each woman gives
$2,000 annually. This encourages learning and participation from a broad
spectrum of donors. Another example of a unique and successful impact
investment organization designed for the household investor is Capital Sisters.
Capital Sisters International is a nonprofit organization whose mission
is to connect impoverished women in developing countries who need tiny
business loans with investors willing to provide them. Capital Sisters offers
zero-interest Sisters Bonds; working through partnerships with nonprofit
micro-finance institutions, women with businesses are given micro-finance
loans. When the loans are repaid, the nonprofit partners keep the interest
while investors get their principal back and receive a Social Dividend
Report—usually a case study of the women who were helped and the
impact their businesses had on their families and communities. Each $1,000
investment helps finance ten women’s businesses at $100 each. Targeting
developing countries and small-scale women-owned businesses is an opportu-
nity for women who are not big donors to help solve global poverty (Capital
Sisters International, 2021).
As fundraisers think about increasing a woman donor’s financial and
philanthropic knowledge through seminars and education, impact investing
should become part of the conversation. Identifying impact champions can
help create a network of women who want to participate and connect through
their love of investing in social causes.
The good news is several large foundations as well as individual investors
are making the choice to explore and practice impact investing. The Ford
Foundation recently shifted $1 billion of its endowment to impact strategies
and the National Geographic Society, where Jean Case, CEO of the Case
Foundation and a strong advocate of impact investment is board chair, has
also shifted a small portion of its $1 billion endowment to impact.
Gender Lens Investing

Gender lens investing, often a subset of impact investing, is the practice of
integrating gender factors into investment analysis and decisions with the goal
of earning financial return while addressing gender disparities.
Applying a gender lens is analogous to putting on a new pair of glasses.
You may still see a sunset, but it is clearer, revealing details you’d missed previ-
ously. Or, think about using binoculars to magnify your view. Suddenly the
picture is more vivid and close to you. As we apply this concept to investing,
think about examining the culture, governance, projects, and programs of a
company through a gender lens. Gender lens investors research how compa-
nies treat employees, produce products and services, and manage their profits
with an eye on sexism before making investments with them. If women
donors and investors truly want to improve the economic and social condi-
tions for women domestically and globally, then the companies that they
invest in need to adopt a gender lens.
Gender lens investing tends to focus on three primary areas: access to
capital, workplace equity, and products and services. Some financial invest-
ment firms have identified five dimensions of gender equity to be considered
in gender lens investing: women in leadership (women on the corporate board
and in senior management roles), access to benefits, diverse supply chains, pay
equity, and talent and culture. There are so many great examples of how this
concept has grown in the past several years:
• Gender Lens Investing (GLI) investments in public markets strategies have

grown from $100 million to $2.4 billion in four years (Business Wire,
2018).
• In 2018, Project Sage 2.0 (a global scan of gender lens investors published
as a collaboration between Wharton Social Impact Initiative and the
University of Pennsylvania) identified 87 total funds deploying capital with
a gender lens via private equity, debt, and venture capital. Total capital
raised cleared $2.2 billion (Hunt & Kuhlman, 2018).
• The World Bank’s Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative (IFC We-
Fi) allocated $129 million to grow 70,000 women-owned businesses
(World Bank, 2019). IFC-We-Fi tests innovations and scales models
within a three-pillar framework: supporting women entrepreneurs through
mentoring, training, and peer networks, expanding financial services to
reach more women-owned businesses, and improving market access inte-
grating women-owned enterprises into the domestic and international
value chains.
184 L. A. Buntz
While women philanthropists still have a long way to go to engage more

actively in impact and gender lens investing, they are embracing learning
about and practicing it as evidenced by the recent announcement from the
Texas Women’s Foundation, that 100% of its $36 million in financial assets
are now invested in a gender impact portfolio. Roselyn Dawson Thompson,
former CEO of the Texas Women’s Foundation, spoke at a 2019 Women’s
Funding Network conference explaining how it has taken time and promo-
tion on her part to get her board and Investment Advisory Committee to
agree to becoming the first, and to date the only, women’s fund or foun-
dation to move its entire assets into gendered impact portfolios. “We hope
that we can inspire others to become part of what is now a global movement
around impact investing. Specifically, for women’s funds and foundations,
we can demonstrate how, by mission-aligning 100% percent of our assets
with our philanthropy, we can powerfully accelerate the change we seek in
the world” (Dawson Thompson, personal communication, April 18, 2019).
Other woman’s foundations are working on similar strategies:
• The Women’s Foundation of Colorado (WFCO) formalized a commit-

ment to Gender Lens Investing (GLI) of 51% of its endowment assets
to be attained by 2021 (WFN, 2019). In 2020 they had 100% gender lens
investing pool in their donor-advised funds.
• The Women’s Funding Network (WFN) offers its donor-advised funds
a 100% GLI option and has established a Programmatic Investment
committee to establish policies and procedures for impact investing consid-
erations.
• Canada’s Vicki Saunders, the founder of Radical Generosity and SheEO,
aspired to have a million investors and a billion dollars for 10,000 women
entrepreneurs by 2020 (McIntyre, 2016). The COVID pandemic inter-
rupted some of the progress of this goal. Following the news of the
lockdown, Saunders held an emergency meeting with 68 of the ventures
they support and triaged their needs. All 68 were able to keep their doors
open with help from SheEO and loans from other ventures.
One of the most common questions investors ask is, “Does gender lens
investing have comparable financial returns to other investments?” There are
many different financial and investment companies currently tracking data
to answer the question. The field of gender lens investing is new, so getting
longitudinal data is just beginning. However, there is evidence that Fortune
500 companies with female board members did better than those without
them when it came to return on equity (ROE), return on sales and return
on invested capital, according to a 2007 study by Catalyst (Joy et al., 2007).

Morgan Stanley Research reports higher ROE, lower accruals, and lower ROE
volatility for companies with high gender diversity, relative to sector peers,
making it appear that applying a gender lens is a good financial investment
and an opportunity for all women to expand their financial and philanthropic
influence (Morgan Stanley Research, 2016).
Here are a few questions for women donors or foundations/nonprofits to
consider as they think about making gender lens investments.
1. What is the purpose of your capital, assets or investments?

2. Why would you consider using a gender lens for your investments?
3. Do you want to be engaged in the investment process as a leader, learner
or mentor?
4. What principles or values guide your investment decisions?
5. What would be the advantages or disadvantages of using a gender lens for
your investments?
6. What type of impact do you want your investments to achieve?
Non-traditional Models of Philanthropy:

Emerson Collective
In 2014, Laurene Powell Jobs founded the Emerson Collective, a social
change organization focused on education, environment, immigration,
media, journalism, and health. Named after Ralph Waldo Emerson and based
on the theme of self-reliance, the Emerson Collective is a new type of philan-
thropy, one unencumbered by some of the traditional rules and regulations
guiding the work of major foundations. Choosing to establish an LLC rather
than a traditional family foundation was a conscious decision. Jobs described
her vision for the Collective, “I’d like us to be a place where great leaders
want to come and try to do difficult things. I think we bring a lot more to
the table than money… If you want to just be a check writer, you’d run out
of money and not solve anything” (Levine, 2019).
By establishing an LLC, Jobs avoids the federal restrictions on how much
she can invest and the types of investments she can make. The LLC can hire the
best people unrestricted by compensation laws or disclosure rules. Although
the company sacrifices some of the benefits of reduced taxes, this new group
of entrepreneurs and philanthropists are willing to forego that perk. They
want flexibility and power. Seeking to change old systems, Jobs looks for
answers to wicked and vexing social issues from the outside. With money
186 L. A. Buntz
to back up her ideas, she says, “Failure is seen as a badge of courage not a
death knell. Embracing ambiguity is a key value.”
Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, a lecturer at Stanford Business School, philan-
thropist and author, describes the attributes of the Collective, “When philan-
thropists are engaged in the type of system change that Laurene is, you have
to be as nimble as possible because ecosystems are constantly shifting, stake-
holders are developing new positions on particular issues, political contexts
change, economic forces evolve” (Levine, 2019).
Since its inception the Emerson Collective has taken a systems approach,
blending the work of nonprofit and investments in for-profit compa-
nies. While addressing specific social issues like curbing gun violence in
Chicago through funding and grants, the Collective has also bought the
majority stakes in magazines like The Atlantic and invested in journalism
and media to help craft the story and message about these social issues,
believing that creating a narrative about social problems is critical to engaging
funders, activists, and politicians. Without the restrictions typically placed
on nonprofits regarding investing in political advocacy, Emerson can also
influence legislation on these same issues.
At about the same time Jobs created the Collective, Pierre and Pam
Omidyar, founders of eBay, established the Omidyar Network, an umbrella
organization for a nonprofit foundation and a for-profit LLC. Many of
Omidyar’s investments focus on financial inclusion, such as Flutterware, a
finance technology company providing payment infrastructure for banks and
businesses to make and accept digital payments in Africa, and Propel, which
builds software to improve low-income Americans’ experience with the food
stamp program (Resier, 2019).
In 2015, to mark the occasion of the birth of their first child, Mark
Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan formed an LLC, the Chan Zuckerberg
Initiative, announcing their intention to give 99% of their Facebook
shares to “advance human potential and promote equality for all children”
(Reiser, 2019). Since its inception, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has
invested in medical research, technology, immigration, and criminal justice
reform projects. They see policy and advocacy work as key to their objectives.
These new legal institutions may lead the way for large-scale philan-
thropists to maximize their privacy and control, avoid the regulatory require-
ments that accompany tax-exempt status, and influence social, economic, and
political systems.
Maverick Collective
Kate Roberts, Director of Population Services International (PSI) and co-
creator of the Maverick Collective believes that money can’t create change—
but people can. In 2007, Roberts was named a Young Global Leader at the
World Economic Forum and began developing a friendship with Her Royal
Highness the Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway. In 2012, Roberts
and the Princess visited India as part of their work advocating for girls
and women. It was there that the concept for the Maverick Collective was
hatched. PSI’s previous work with the Gates Foundation had established a
partnership and shared vision to end extreme poverty through the investment
and support of women and girls worldwide. As the idea for the Collective
began to take shape, Melinda Gates became an enthusiastic advocate and
signed on as a co-chair.
In 2015, the United Nations agreed to a set of Sustainable Development
Goals and in response to their call for action, Roberts, HRH Mette-Marit
and Melinda Gates launched the Maverick Collective in 2016 in Copen-
hagen. PSI is a global health Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) with
operations in 65 countries. The Maverick Collective is an initiative of this
organization. The Collective developed an all-female initiative focused on
raising money, training members, and advocating for change by investing in
girls and women. Members were strategically selected and asked to commit
three years of their time, $1 million, and to do the actual work to solve a
social problem. The selection criteria for the initial members were women
who had skills, interest, money, and abilities to move the agenda forward.
Fourteen women stepped up, creating a seven-figure fund that in three short
years built partnerships, raised $60 million, launched 25 programs in twenty
countries, and served more than one million women. The programs range
from reducing teenage pregnancy in Tanzania to establishing health centers
in India for women with cervical cancer.
Roberts describes the Maverick Collective as disruptive—in a good way.
Women have been marginalized in the world of philanthropy and this initia-
tive is an opportunity to engage at a bold level. So, what is this initiative doing
differently? Each member is matched with a partner “liaison” to identify
impact areas that align with a donor’s interest and to zero in on a geographic
location to target. “This is an executive management course in saving the
world” (Hullinger, 2016).
This model of engagement challenges the members to learn about the
issues in the country they are assigned. Through an intensive technical
training program, they get an in-depth view of the challenges to women and
188 L. A. Buntz
girls in third-world countries. They also partner with recipients to design the
programs that will be implemented. Members of the Maverick Collective feel
engaged in the process of philanthropy at a completely different level, learn
about social issues, become ambassadors for women’s issues, and through the
experience feel a sense of pride and unity with women around the world. And
the Maverick Collective is investing in the next generation of women philan-
thropists through their program Maverick NEXT, a specific initiative to train
and engage young advocates, entrepreneurs, and philanthropists.
Two other innovative and creative programs include Blue Meridian and
the Audacious Project.
Blue Meridian
Led by a visionary woman named Nancy Roob, Blue Meridian is a conglom-
eration of partners including nationally known foundations: Bill and Melinda
Gates, Edna McConnell Clark, Eugene and Marilyn Steiner, George Kaiser,
and William and Flora Hewlett to name a few, plus HNW individ-
uals including MacKenzie Scott. Using a performance-based model, Blue
Meridian makes strategic and large-scale investments in organizations that
address poverty and economic mobility for young people and families in the
U.S. By connecting people and families who need assistance to organiza-
tions that can deliver services and philanthropists who want to see impact,
Blue Meridian uses a multi-step process to vet their grantees. After assessing
an organization’s ability and capacity to work on critical social issues, Blue
Meridian invests in funding a planning grant. Following a two-year plan-
ning process, successful organizations may receive up to $200 million over
the course of 10–12 years to invest in services, programs and infrastructure.
This model helps pool philanthropists who have common goals and empha-
sizes the need to listen intently to the providers of services so solutions can be
co-created. By making long-term investments in the social sector, it is possible
to see social change happen and create a plan for sustainability.
The Audacious Project

Social entrepreneurs are the agents of social impact philanthropy. They create
solutions to tricky social problems and in some cases produce investment
results for their investors. The Audacious Project (AP) supported by the
Bridgespan Group (a nationally known nonprofit and research organization)
addresses one of the most common problems social entrepreneurs face—

finding venture capital one donor at a time. The Audacious Project brings
creatives together to imagine solutions to global problems and provides a
venue for social change agents to pitch their ideas to investors. Collabora-
tion is one of the key tenants of this approach. AP gathers nonprofit experts,
philanthropists, creators, and researchers to dream big and bold. Since 2006
AP has supported the One Acre Fund , a project that funds Sub-Saharan
African farmers through micro-loans, seeds, fertilizer and agronomic training,
enabling the farm families to increase their income. In the next five years, One
Acre Fund will serve 1.98 million farm families per year (https://audacious
project.org/grantees/one-acre-fund, 2021). Currently, many of their projects
are focused on COVID-19 solutions targeting recovery and response. This
includes speeding up contact tracing, better access for minority communi-
ties, and assistance to health workers. Some of the projects in the idea stage
include a global surveillance network to stop the next pandemic or mental
health support via text messages.
New models of women’s philanthropy are developing everyday enticing
donors to learn, analyze, and act using a creative and innovative lens.
Fundraisers will need to learn with them and bring a wider variety of options
to donors. Traditional fundraising techniques cannot be the primary and
or only source of engaging women, it will not continue to work. And as
more women become leaders in the field of philanthropy, they will explore
and find new types of investments to offer to their constituents. Now is the
time to partner with women board members, volunteers and donors to create
initiatives that will increase the resource pool and create systemic and social
change.
Bibliography
Audacious Project. Retrieved July 2, 2021, from https://audaciousproject.org/gra
ntees/one-acre-fund
Brest, P., & Born, K. (2013). When can impact investing create real impact? Stanford
Social Innovation Review, 11(4), 22–31.
Business Wire, A Berkshire Hathaway Company, Veris Wealth Partners. (2018,
October 30). Retrieved September 10, 2020, from https://www.businesswire.
com/news/home/20181030005112/en/Gender-lens-Investing-Assets-Rise-85-in-
Past-Year-and-Now-Exceed-2.4-Billion
Capital Sisters International. (2021). Retrieved December 20, 2020, from https://
ww.capitalsisters.org
190 L. A. Buntz
Case, J. (2017). Bringing the last decade of impact investing to life: An interactive
timeline. The Case Foundation. Retrieved April 27, 2020, from https://casefound
ation.org/blog/bringing-last-decade-impact-investing-life-interactive-timeline/
Field, A. (2018, January 31). Grameen American expands into impact investing.
Forbes. Retrieved October 10, 2019, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefi
eld/2018/01/31/grameen-america-expands-into-impact-investing/
Hullinger, J. (2016, May 16). How a princess and CEO are applying the
VC Model to philanthropy. Fast Company. Retrieved February 18, 2020,
from https://www.fastcompany.com/3058981/how-a-princess-and-a-ceo-are-app
lying-the-vc-model-to-philanthropy
Hunt, S., & Kuhlman, S. (2018, October 29). 7 Takeaways from Project Sage
2.0—The global scan of gender lens private equity, VC and private debt funds.
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved May 30, 2019,
from https://www.wharton.upenn.edu/story/7-takeaways-from-project-sage-2-0-
the-global-scan-of-gender-lens-private-equity-vs-and-private-debt-funds
Joy, L., Wagner H. M., Narayanan, S., & Carter, N. (2007). The bottom line: Corpo-
rate performance and women’s representation on boards (Report). Retrieved April 8,
2020, from https://www.blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2019/06/24/how-are-gen
der-lens-fund-performing
Kanani, R. (2012, February 23). The state and future of impact investing. Forbes.
Retrieved January 22, 2019, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/rahimkanani/
2012/02/23/the-state-and-future-of-impact-investing/#5ea682eded48
Kowalik, M., & Martinez-Miera, D.(2010, April). The creditworthiness of the poor: A
model of the Grameen Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic
Research Department. Retrieved August 14, 2019, from www.fdic.com
Levine, M. (2019, June). Does the Emerson Collective square with philan-
thropic accountability? The Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved November 30, 2020,
from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/does-the-emerson-collective-square-with-phi
lanthropic-accountability
McIntyre, C. (2016, December 13). How Vicki Saunders plans to get a million
women involved in venture capital. Canadian Business. Retrieved September 18,
2020, from https://www.canadianbusiness.com/innovation/sheeo-radical-genero
sity-vicki-saunders/
Morgan Stanley Research. (2015, February 27). Morgan Stanley Survey finds
sustainable investing poised for growth. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from https://
www.morganstanley.com/press-releases/morgan-stanley-survey-finds-sustainable-
investing-poised-for-growth_06490efO-a8b2-4a68-8864-64261a4decO
Morgan Stanley Research. (2016). The gender advantage: integrating gender diversity
into investment decisions. Retrieved September 30, 2020, from https://www.mor
ganstanley.com.pub/content//dam/msdotcom/ideas/genderdiversity-toolkit/Gen
der-Diversity-Investing-Primer-pdf
Morgan Stanley Research. (2017, August 9). Sustainable socially responsible investing
millennial drive growth. Retrieved August 30, 2020, from https://www.mor
ganstanley.com/ideas/sustainable-socially-responsible-investing-millennials-drive-
growth
Mudaliar, A., Bass, R., Dithrich, H., & Noshin, N. (2019). Annual Impact Investor
Survey. GINN. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from https://thegiin.org/research/
publication/impinv-survey-2019
Osili, U., Mesch D., Ackerman, J., Bergdoll, J., Preston, L., & Pactor, A.
(2018). How men and women approach impact investing. Lilly Family School
of Philanthropy, Women’s Philanthropy Institute (4). Retrieved November
8, 2020, from https://scholarwork.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/16229/Imp
act%20Investing%20%Report%20FINAL.pdf
Reiser, B. D. (2019, Summer). Is the Chan Zuckerberg initiative the future of
philanthropy? Stanford Social Innovation.
World Bank. (2019, May 13). Women entrepreneurs finance initiative allocates second
round of funding: Expected to grow 70,000 women’s businesses. Retrieved October
25, 2020, from https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/05/
13/women-entrepreneurs-finance-initiative-allocates-second-round-funding-exp
ected-to-grow-70000womens-businesses
14
Diversity and Philanthropy—Engaging
Women of Color and the Next Generation
of Donors
Women’s philanthropy advocates have frequently addressed the concept of

intersectionality, the ways multiple factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, class,
economics, and social status intersect creating unique issues and identities, in
their efforts to build new initiatives. For decades fundraisers have struggled
with successfully engaging a broader range of philanthropists, particularly
women of color, and understanding the issues, concerns, motivations, and
interests that may be unique to these populations. Unfortunately, there has
been limited progress on the landscape of diversity among philanthropic
professionals and donors. Though numbers change depending upon the
source one gleans them from, it’s safe to say that 60 to 70 percent of people
in the U.S. identify themselves as white or Caucasian (U.S Census Bureau,
2021) yet:
• In 2017, Board Source, the nonprofit expert in board leadership and gover-
nance surveyed 1800 foundations and public charities and found that 90%
of CEOs and board chairs were white as were 84% of board members
(Board Source, 2017).
• According to the 2018 Demographic Report of the Association of
Fundraising Professionals, of its more than 31,000 members, fewer than
10 percent were people of color (Burton, 2020).
• In 2020, fundraising software company, Blackbaud, found that 75% of
donors were white (Hayes & Stiffman, 2020).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_14
194 L. A. Buntz
In the past several years, there has been more research about race and char-
itable giving, but very limited information about gender, race, and charitable
giving. In 2019, The Women’s Philanthropy Institute conducted a research
study: WomenGive19: Gender and Giving Across Communities of Color. The
results confirm the generosity of women and that gender differences in giving
pointed out in earlier chapters hold across racial lines: in communities of
color, single women are more likely to give than single men, and married
couples are more likely than single men or women to give (Mesch et al.,
2019). The good news is, women of color are moving into leadership roles,
developing programs and affinity groups, hosting conferences, trainings, and
giving.
Identify Specific Affinity Groups

Women often engage in philanthropy along personal affiliations sometimes
referred to as identity specific affinity groups such as: Asian Women in Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM), Women United for Young
Professionals, Hispanics in Philanthropy, #BlackHer, (a website for black
women philanthropists and activists), and the Asian Women’s Giving Circle
(AWGC). Black sororities are powerful identity networks. Alpha Kappa Alpha
(AKA) is a 110-year-old international sorority of Black college graduates
primarily dedicated to giving money for college access. Sixty percent of the
giving circles identified in the Landscape of Giving Circles/Collective Giving
Groups in the U.S. were formed around a particular identity (Bearman et al.,
2017).
Such identity-specific groups engage in what is referred to as social capital .
Defined as early as 1916 by L.J. Hanifan, a state supervisor of rural schools
in West Virginia, social capital refers to “those tangible substances that
count for most in [the]daily lives of people, namely: good will, fellowship,
sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who
make up a social unit” (Hanifan, 1916, p. 130). Bonding and bridging are
two primary types of social capital (Gittell & Vidal, 1998, p. 8). Bonding
creates connections between the donor and consumer within a group or
community. Examples are: ethnic fraternal organizations, church-based study
groups, or specific ethnic-based giving circles supporting women of the same
ethnicity. Bonding helps build solidarity and social support within groups.
Robert Putnam, the well-known Harvard social scientist, describes it as super-
glue (Putnam, 2000, p. 23) and (Mesch et al., 2019) notes that when donor
and recipient share the same identity, donors tend to give more.
14 Diversity and Philanthropy—Engaging Women of Color … 195
The Latino Community Foundation (LCF) in California is a good example

of social capital bonding. In 2012, they launched the Latino Giving Circles
Network, a collection of 22 giving circles including more than 500 members
which have distributed nearly $1.7 million to 100 Latina-led nonprofits.
Since the recent pandemic, the circles have pledged $150,000 for COVID-
19 relief to the foundation’s Love Not Fear fund. In addition to supporting
nonprofits, the LCF’s work includes building economic and political power
for Latinos through voter registration efforts and census participation (Di
Mento, 2020).
Another pertinent example is the Asian Women’s Giving Circle (AWGC)
of New York founded by Hali Lee, a strong advocate for women donors
of color. Born in South Korea, Lee graduated from Princeton, earned a
Master’s in Social Work from New York University, and led philanthropic
services at J.P. Morgan. Since its inception, AWGC has donated nearly
$1 million to support Asian artists, filmmakers, writers, and advocates
(https://asianwomengivingcircle.org/).
Bridging social capital occurs between different groups of people (Mesch
et al., 2019) generating broader identities and creating linkage across social
and economic lines. The Ms. Foundation, one of the nation’s oldest women’s
foundations, is an example of bridging and bonding social capital. Teresa
Younger, CEO, recently announced the foundation will launch a five-year
strategic plan to invest $25 million in resources and support for organizations
led by and for women of color (PND Candid, 2018). The Ms. Founda-
tion has a long history of supporting women and girls, but its grantmaking
and advocacy had been broad-based, not ethnic-specific. It has been a bridge
linking many different ethnic groups. This new plan helps bond donors of
color to a specific groups and causes. The foundation will also increase its
investments in support of political action to help elect representatives who
advocate for policies that benefit women and girls of color through its new
501(c) 4 fund.
Donors of Color—Black Women

Data on donors of color, specifically HNW donors, is scarce, most of it
gleaned from banks, wealth management firms, and consulting businesses.
Attorney Urvashi Vaid, President of the Vaid Group and co-founder with
the aforementioned Hali Lee of the Donors of Color Network, was curious
about HNW people of color who are philanthropists. With support from
the Marguerite Casey Foundation, Vaid and Ashindi Maxton interviewed
196 L. A. Buntz
this donor population. Their study The Apparitional Donor : Understanding

and Engaging High Net Worth Donors of Color, and the Chronicle of Philan-
thropy’s article “How to Connect with Donors of Color” offer some insights
(Haynes & Stiffman, 2020, pp. 9–17; Vaid & Maxton, 2017).
• 1.3 million African American, Asian American and Hispanic American

individuals have a net worth of over $1 million.
• Donors of color have more often built their wealth versus inheriting it.
• Donors of color feel uncomfortable participating in philanthropy networks
which are predominately white.
• Donors of color are not connected to other donors of color.
• Donors of color say that they would give more if asked.
Donors of color have resources. Their names may not be recognized as

community leaders, show up on the lists of boards of directors, or donor
lists for sponsorships and contributions. Rather than funneling contribu-
tions through traditional nonprofit organizations or foundations, their giving
may be more informal. How can fundraisers use this information? We need
to look deeper and in different places to truly understand where donors of
color are giving, and why.
Marion Brown, the first Black Vice President of Development in the Big
Ten, began her long development career at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison by securing funds for an innovative new scholarship program for
students of color. She continued overseeing this work after she assumed
broader responsibilities at the University of Wisconsin Foundation. “Blacks
have always been philanthropic, however not always in the traditional
model,” she said. “Many Blacks have given first to family members and
neighbors needing help. We have given most generously to churches and
organizations such as the NAACP, Urban League, and traditionally Black
colleges - all activities of great interest and commitment. Philanthropy among
Blacks has always existed but, it is becoming more visible with the increasing
number of publicly announced major gifts. One of the common mispercep-
tions is that Blacks lack resources and interest to warrant the attention of
development officers. During my entire career, I encouraged colleagues and
staff to visit Blacks who superficially didn’t appear wealthy. Women are similar
in that their names don’t appear at the top of research reports because their
assets may not be so readily apparent. To gain the interest of both Blacks and
women potential donors, just as with anyone else, you have to demonstrate
that their gifts will have a personally meaningful impact. In order to gain
their support, you must explain how the institution is supportive of them
and their priorities” (Brown, personal communication, June 1, 2021).
Eddie and Sylvia Brown are examples of African American philanthropists
who want to encourage more giving from people of color. Brown is the
owner of Brown Capital Management, an $8 billion investment company
he founded in 1983. Thanks to a wealthy woman donor in Allentown,
Pennsylvania he was able to obtain a university education as an engineer.
Unfortunately, he never knew the donor’s name and was never able to thank
her. His debt to her is what prompts him and his wife Sylvia to give gener-
ously and to encourage other African Americans to become donors. As HNW
people they were initially reluctant to be public about their giving. Finally,
after some encouragement from fundraisers, they agreed to be recognized and
to speak about their philanthropy. “We’re very concerned about giving from
the African American community” says Eddie. “People with capacity aren’t
stepping up commensurate with their capacity to give. Matches encourage
them. Some are wealthier than we are and they don’t want to give, or lead or
be out front, but they don’t mind giving quietly.” Thus, one of their strate-
gies as donors of color is to spur other philanthropists to step up. Almost
all of Brown’s giving comes in a “match” format, grants with the stipula-
tion that the organizations receiving their philanthropy raise donations from
other wealthy African Americans (Di Mento, 2019). Realizing that donors of
color need role models and leaders, the Browns have chosen to fill that gap
by expanding their philanthropic strategy to help fundraising professionals
connect with more donors of color (Di Mento, 2019). When Susan Taylor,
former editor in chief of Essence magazine, honored the Browns at a gala
several years ago, they attracted a big crowd, helping her raise $1.1 million.
While the Black Lives Matter movement cries out for institutions to diver-
sify programs for Black citizens and to advance social justice, it also notes
that development offices need to be more focused on securing funds from
Black Americans. After all the race sensitivity training, for example, some
colleges still fall short in even simple development and marketing efforts such
as diverse faces or the voices of Black students in campus videos. Yet, more
highly educated than their brothers and with prominent roles in their fami-
lies and communities, Black women are particularly strong donor prospects.
Are we treating them as such?
Within the women’s philanthropy movement, fundraisers are still learning
about what motivates and inspires women of color. Melanie Brown is a
senior consultant at the Gates Foundation and a Black woman. Her interest
in women’s philanthropy was sparked when she was selected as an Atlantic
Fellow by the International Inequalities Institute based at the London School
198 L. A. Buntz
of Economics and Political Science. Fellows work on research, learning,

connection, and reflection in the areas of social change and economic inequal-
ities. During her capstone project, she interviewed women of color who were
philanthropists and leaders. One of the themes Brown discovered in those
interviews is that women of color bring two identities to their philanthropy—
being a woman and being black. “They want to bring those lenses to all
of their decision-making. It’s philanthropy and movement building. Their
gender and race guide them as they think about their philanthropy” (Melanie
Brown, personal communication, February 17, 2019).
This dual identity is an important insight for fundraisers and a reflection
of the intersectionality theme. Using this information for women donors can
help fundraisers expand their knowledge and skills to engage more women
of color. Jocelyn Harmon, co-founder of #BlackHer, an online platform
educating and inspiring Black women to act for change, has developed a
Black Woman’s Guide to Philanthropy. She confirms some of the earlier
themes. Black women have a spirit of service and inclusiveness; they hold
families and communities together. Family is often their first thought for
philanthropy. This devotion to family includes a sense of legacy—how to
honor their parents or others who have helped them along the way.
One of the newest and brightest women leading the effort to diver-
sify the professional philanthropy community and to connect with donors
of color is Yolanda F. Johnson. As the first African American President of
Women in Development, New York City’s premier organization for women
and fundraising, she has always been a game changer. In 2020, Johnson
launched Women of Color in Fundraising and Philanthropy to help advance
women of color within the profession, offer training, and education and build
a network of women who can support each other. Using her background
as a performer, she blends artistry with knowledge and experience helping
nonprofit organizations strategize about how to fundraise and reach women
of color. A frequent consultant on inclusion, equity, and diversity issues,
Johnson believed the timing was right for Women of Color in Fundraising
and Philanthropy; the fund development world was hungry for information,
ideas and experts. Although only a year old, the organization has a thousand
members from four countries. “Donors and fundraisers now have a space to
be together,” said Johnson.
When she is not serving on a panel or bringing diverse women and funders
together, Johnson is advocating for social change and encouraging women to
give bigger and bolder. As she said, “There’s a lot of money left on the table
because fundraisers don’t ask women. We have to change who’s sitting at the
table” (Johnson, personal communication, March 9, 2021).
Hispanics in Philanthropy (HIP)

Today, there are more than 60 million Latinxs in the U.S. and by 2060 it
is projected that Latinx will make up 28% of the U.S. population. It is the
largest ethnic or racial minority in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021).
The term “Latinx” is a gender-neutral, non-binary alternative to the tradi-
tional Spanish language construction of Latino (male) or Latina (female). The
Latinx population has continued to grow in size and influence, yet histori-
cally it has been disproportionately impacted by wage and income inequities.
According to Amalia Brindis Delgado, Associate Vice President of Strategy
at Hispanics in Philanthropy, Latina women make only 0.55 cents to every
$1 earned by a white male (Delgado, personal communication, April 22,
2020). Latinx median household wealth is $6,600 compared to $147,000
for white families, and their median household income is $50,486 compared
to $68,145 for whites (PowerUp Fund.org, 2019). 45% of households report
income below $50,000 per year (Rovner, 2015). Latinx hold only 2% of the
U.S. wealth.
Despite these glaring disparities and lack of financial resources, phil-
anthropic giving within Latinx communities tells a different story. Sixty-
three percent of Latinx households gave to charity and in 2015, they sent
$68 million to their home countries in Latin America and the Caribbean
(Goodwin, 2018). Latinx donors are among the youngest in the philan-
thropic space and most households are likely to have children. They give a
larger percentage of income to church than other donors and have a strong
commitment to children’s causes. The percent of men who are donors still
exceeds the number of women (Rovner, 2015).
Economic investments in the Latinx community are also woefully lacking.
Less than 2% of venture capital investments went to Latino and Black
entrepreneurs in 2016 and only 0.66% of all philanthropic funding was
earmarked for Latinx communities (PowerUp Fund.org, 2019).
One organization that is addressing the needs of Latinx families and
women donors is Hispanics in Philanthropy (HIP) a transnational orga-
nization strengthening Latinx leadership, voice, and equity by leveraging
philanthropic resources with a focus on social justice and the goal of pros-
perity across the Americas. HIP makes impactful investments in Latinx
communities and develops leaders in the social and philanthropic sector to
effectively address issues impacting communities in the U.S., Latin America
and the Caribbean.
200 L. A. Buntz
The development and evolution of HIP has been heavily influenced by

women. In 1981, HIP was founded when Luz Vega-Marqui, former Presi-
dent/CEO of the Marguerite Casey Foundation, Elisa Arévalo, Vice President
of Wells Fargo Bank and Herman Gallegos, Trustee of the SBC Foundation
organized an informal meeting at the Council on Foundations. By the time
HIP was incorporated two years later, its leadership included Wilma Espinoza
from Levi Strauss & Co., and Christina Cuevas of The San Francisco Foun-
dation. In the late 1990s, Diana Campoamor was hired as president of HIP,
serving for nearly three decades before passing the baton to the current HIP
President and CEO Ana Marie Argilagos in 2018.
Brindis Delgado explains that HIP has continually expanded its services
across the Americas, and in 2006 established an office in Mexico. “Having
our feet on the ground and our ears open brings us closer to the communi-
ties we serve” (Brindis Delgado, personal communication, April 22, 2020).
Since 2000, it has partnered with more than 270 funders to invest roughly
$60 million in grants to more than 800 nonprofits working to increase
resources for Latinx communities, businesses and nonprofits, enhancing phil-
anthropic participation, and advocating for equitable policy change. Since
January 2018, HIP has made over $6.2 million in investments to hundreds of
organizations and created the first and only Spanish–English bilingual digital
crowdfunding platform, HIPGIVE.org.
Latinx lead as philanthropists in their families and communities in the
U.S. and in their home countries. Born in Venezuela, Brindis Delgado, like
many other Latinas in the U.S., feels a far-reaching responsibility to take care
of her family at home—here, and in her native country.
In recent years, HIP’s work has actively responded to public policies
impacting vulnerable communities. When the Family Separation policy was
implemented in 2018, HIP brought together a 50-member delegation of the
country’s most important philanthropic organizations to better understand
and witness first-hand the inequities and challenges faced by migrant fami-
lies. Brindis Delgado believes this has had a tremendous impact on potential
partners and philanthropists, motivating them to get engaged.
While addressing the immediate needs of children and families is critical,
getting funding to work on the root causes of issues and intersectional long-
term strategies is equally important. As an organization that focuses on the
needs of women of color, HIP has been involved in examining and publishing
information about the social determinants of health and how these adversely
impact Latinas.
One of HIP’s programs supports midwifery initiatives in Mexico.
By strengthening the midwifery models, HIP contributes to improving
women’s reproductive health addressing precarious conditions and chal-

lenges to accessing quality sexual and reproductive health, while promoting
women’s leadership and workplace rights. Additionally, in 2018, HIP’s report
“Maquilando el Cambio” presented the case for national corporations to
create sustainable and equitable labor practices with a gender perspective in
Mexico in both the traditional and fast fashion industry.
“We need more women in decision-making roles. HIP’s Líderes fellowship
program emboldens a new generation of Latinx to move into decision making
positions in philanthropy and to promote increased investments in their
communities” (Brindis Delgado, personal communication, April 22, 2020).
HIP centers its Fellowship curriculum as well as its grants on addressing
systemic issues of race equity and implicit bias within philanthropy. Insti-
tutional racism in mainstream philanthropic institutions continues to create
a gap in seeing and creating a pipeline for women of color to advance to lead-
ership and decision-making roles in the sector. Without this representation,
philanthropy will fall short in addressing inequities internal to the sector,
especially impacting Black, Latinx, indigenous, and other people of color.
Finally, rather than relying on traditional foundation funding through
grants, HIP has established its own social finance fund. The PowerUp Fund
launched in 2020 has a goal of investing $60 million into Latinx-owned
small businesses—$1 for every Latino who calls the U.S. home. Faced with
the threat of losing 50% of Latinx-owned small businesses due to COVID-
19, HIP responded by activating its PowerUP Fund to provide emergency
small business relief. Originally conceived to address the dearth of capital
flowing to promising Latinx entrepreneurs, PowerUP’s strategy pivoted to
support immediate-term economic resilience for Latinx communities. In
summer 2020, PowerUP began to deploy grant capital as cash assistance
to small Latinx-owned businesses—a continuation of its model in post-
Hurricane Maria Puerto Rico. Through its PowerUP Fund, HIP aims to raise
$60 million in 2020–2025 to transform the business and investment climate
for Latinx enterprises.
Asian American and Pacific Islander Women

Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) comprise approximately 7% of
the U.S. population and are among the fastest growing racial and ethnic
groups (AAPIP, 2020, p. 3). From 2000 to 2019 this population experi-
enced a 95% increase from 11.9 million to 23.2 million. Chinese Americans
202 L. A. Buntz
are the largest Asian-origin group in the U.S., making up 23% of the Asian
population (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021).
Philanthropic support from foundations and individual donors for AAPI
populations has been among the lowest of many minority groups. A recent
analysis by the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity (2018) found that
between 2005 and 2014 the proportion of foundation dollars focused on
communities of color never exceeded 8.5%. In 2014, only 0.26 percent
of philanthropy was targeted to AAPI, less than to the Native American,
Latinx and Black communities (https://racialequity.org). Providing research
and donor management for nonprofits, Blackbaud surveyed 1,096 U.S. adults
and reported that only 5% of Asians are donors and that percentage is
projected to grow only 1% by 2030 (Rovner, 2015).
Violence, bullying, and physical attacks on Asian Americans during the
pandemic have brought attention to the discrimination they experience and
prompted a surge of philanthropic support. The California Endowment
recently pledged $100 million to AAPI communities in California (PND
Candid, 2018). The Asian American Foundation Board committed $125
million over five years to support AAPI causes (Ax, 2021). Numerous national
news stations reported that nearly 30 donors pledged more than $25.8
million for this population following the March 16, 2021 shooting in Atlanta
that killed six Asian women (Ax, 2021; Hadero, 2021).
Prior to these tragic incidents, the philanthropic support for AAPI had
been minimal. Asian philanthropy has not been studied extensively and is
not very well understood. Ruth Shapiro, Chief Executive of the Centre for
Asian Philanthropy and Society (CAPS), a research and advisory organiza-
tion based in Hong Kong, suggests several reasons for this (Shapiro, 2018,
pp. 1–12). Many individuals living in Asia were not able to give to others, as
they struggled with survival. It is only in the past thirty years that China has
moved a significant amount of people out of poverty. Naturally, the country
focused on economic development first. There was neither history nor interest
in creating social programs and nonprofit organizations.
The question of whose responsibility is it to help others has influenced
philanthropy within Asia and may still impact immigrants in the U.S. Is it
the government’s or an individual’s role to help others? Who is responsible for
the social sector? In Asia, service delivery organizations and NGOs are viewed
with some skepticism due to their advocacy roles and perceived misalign-
ment with governmental policies. How much history and culture continue
to impact U.S. Asian American and Pacific Islander attitudes about philan-
thropy is still uncertain and will most likely change over generations. The
good news is that Asian Americans are increasing their wealth capacity and
engaging in philanthropic endeavors. The annual median household income

of Asian Americans is $94,903 compared to Caucasians at $74,912 and
overall U.S. households at $67,521 (https://www.statista). BNP Paribus a
wealth management firm in the U.S., Asia and Europe highlighted several
women who have risen to prominence through their wealth capacity and
philanthropy, let’s have a look at some of them:
Zhonghui You, founder of Shenzhen Seaskyland Technologies, an educa-
tional software company became the first women from mainland China
to sign the Gates Giving Pledge. Listed as one of 169 billionaires world-
wide, You wants to encourage other wealthy Asian women to get engaged
in philanthropy.
Yoshiko Shinohara, Japan’s first self-made billionaire, made her fortune
by creating part-time jobs for women through her publicly listed company
Temp Holdings. She established the Yoshiko Shinohara Memorial Founda-
tion in 2014 which grants scholarships to students in nursing and social work
programs.
What to do with newfound wealth is a question for many newly wealthy
AAPI women. How do they blend their cultural beliefs and norms with the
current philanthropy models practiced in the U.S and the world? Do they
give directly to nonprofit organizations, establish foundations or give directly
to communities and individuals? Only 30% of Asian women billionaires have
established foundations compared to 80% of American women on the list of
global billionaires (BNP Paribus, 2018).
Diversity in Giving: The Changing Landscape of American Philanthropy
provides a few additional insights about women in the AAPI community and
philanthropy. Asian women are more likely than Asian men to be donors,
60% versus 40% (Rovner, 2015). Fifty-four percent of Asian donors are
Millennials and Generation Xers. Overall, they have a higher education level,
with 40% having college degrees compared with the overall U.S population of
32.1% (Rovner, 2015). AAPI women want what many other women donors
want: financial security, career advancement, and access. Although there are
differences depending on the country of origin, age and wealth, many AAPI
are more financially literate and confident in their decisions and investments
than the average American woman (Turner Moffit, 2015, p. 84).
In selecting priorities for philanthropy, AAPI donors choose education and
emergency relief efforts while placing little emphasis on giving to faith-based
organizations (Rovner, 2015). Some AAPI women donors interviewed for
this book emphasized the need to support arts and culture organizations as
ways to promote awareness and understanding of other ethnic groups. In a
204 L. A. Buntz
review of the grant selection from Asian Women’s Giving Circles, many of
the organizations supported were arts and culture oriented.
Nearly half of Asian Americans surveyed will support a friend or family
member’s request for a donation to a cause, and similar to other ethnic popu-
lations, they give to their families and children first using informal networks.
When they do access more formal philanthropic networks, Asian donors who
are ardent users of technology and social media are likely to visit a nonprofit’s
website and to further investigate an organization before making a charitable
contribution. When they do, they’re twice as likely as the non-Asian commu-
nity to give via crowdfunding (Rovner, 2015). One Vietnamese woman is
using this tech-savviness to her advantage.
Hong Hoang
Hong Hoang was born in 1972 in the midst of the Viet Nam war. As a
precocious, intelligent child, she was fortunate to join a performance group,
the Hanoi’s Children’s Palace, and to travel the country performing. At 13 she
traveled to Russia to attend the International Youth and Student Festival and
International Children’s Camp. Perhaps these experiences seeded her interest
in cultures, connections, and entrepreneurship.
At the age of 23, participating in a UNESCO expedition team including
35 youth from 25 countries, she was the first Vietnamese person to go to the
Arctic Circle. Prior to the trip, Hoang had not thought much about envi-
ronmental issues, but the expedition opened her eyes to the climate crisis
facing the world. She has never looked back. Developing awareness of envi-
ronmental issues and advocating for policy change became her passion and
life’s work. CHANGE, the nonprofit she launched to address the climate
crisis in her country has been growing ever since. Through marketing, perfor-
mance, and education Hoang is trying to increase interest and action, engage
volunteers and use her limited resources to shift the mindset of her country’s
people.
Hoang admits that progress is slow. In a country that had been devastated
by war, people have been more focused on critical needs like food, shelter, and
poverty. Despite ongoing issues of plastic and air pollution, illegal wildlife
trading, and the threats of climate change, the environment seems to most
a low priority. Engaging volunteers and interested funders is difficult, espe-
cially in a country that does not support nonprofits. To date, like most of Viet
Nam’s NGOs which are run and worked by women, eighty to ninety percent
of Hoang’s workforce and volunteers are women who care about their envi-
ronment and the impact on their families (Hoang, personal communication,
May 19, 2021).
While culturally, philanthropy is not widely used or practiced in Viet Nam,
Hoang believes she is making small inroads with some sensitive and environ-
mentally aware corporations. Fundraising through grants, corporate support,
and funding from foundations and individuals is still a struggle. Her hope is
that as economic conditions in her country improve more people will begin to
care about the environment. In the meantime, her work has been recognized
by numerous organizations. She has been named one of 50 most influential
Vietnamese women by Forbes Vietnam, a Top 5 Ambassador of Inspiration
at the WeChoice Awards, featured on the Climate Heroes website, and in
2018, was chosen to join the inaugural class of Obama Scholars. In 2019,
she received the Green Warrior of the Year Award at the Elle Style Awards
(LinkedIn Hong Hoang, 2021).
Hoang believes that reaching the younger generation is one of her best bets
to create change. She uses her talents in social media and performance to get
their attention (Hoang, personal communication, May 19, 2021). Perhaps all
of us should heed her advice.
The New Generation of Women Donors

Every fundraiser and nonprofit organization would like to find a way to
“crack the code” of what makes younger donors tick. We want to know how
to define them. What do they care about? How will they practice philan-
thropy? How can we engage them? The Matures/Silent Generation (people
born before 1946) and Baby Boomers (1946–1964) have higher participation
rates for philanthropic donations, 78 and 75%, respectively, and give higher
amounts annually than the “new generations,” but their place at the top the
donor ladder is time-limited (Blackbaud, 2018, p. 8).
Generation X (1965–1980), Generation Y, better known as the Millennials
(1981–2000), and Generation Z (2001–2021) are labeled and defined by a
confusing alphabet soup of terms. Fifty-one percent of them are women who
will achieve increasing amounts of economic and philanthropic power. What
do women in these age categories want from their giving experiences? What
is the best way to reach them and to tap their philanthropic interests and
capacities?
206 L. A. Buntz
• By 2025 Gen Y-Millennials (1981–2000) will earn 46% of the total

income in the U.S. (Kasasa, 2021).
• Millennials are expected to be 75% of the U.S. labor force by 2030 and to
inherit $30 trillion in wealth from Baby Boomers (Asset, 2019).
• Generation Z and Generation Y have buying power expected to exceed
$500 billion (Salisbury, 2019).
These generations of women donors will have more education, employ-

ment opportunities, inheritance, and access to technology than previous
generations, resulting in the ability to chart new courses of philanthropy.
And, the philanthropy arena they have available to them is much larger,
more complex, and diverse than the arenas of previous generations. Inter-
national disasters are known the same day they occur, social movements
spread like wildfire over social media, and pandemics touch everyone’s lives.
These women live in a world that military planners call “VUCA”—volatile,
uncertain, complex and ambiguous (Rovner, 2018, p. 4). Fortunately, they
possess a zest for revolutionizing philanthropy through social innovation,
entrepreneurship, impact investing, and new strategies. And, they are willing
to give more if asked. In one survey, 53% of donors under age 35 said they
could have given more in the previous year compared with 36% of donors
overall (Joselyn, 2019, p. 39). Let’s examine each generation in more detail.
Generation X
Comprised of roughly 65.6 million people, or one-fifth of the U.S. popu-
lation, Generation X (1965–1980) is considered the “sandwich” generation,
lodged between Boomers and Millennials. Approximately 55% of them give,
totaling $32.9 billion each year (Rovner, 2018, p. 8). As latchkey kids, they
witnessed their parents giving their souls to their jobs and have concluded
that time is more valuable than money. Gen X women are active volun-
teers because they are connected to their communities through their children,
home ownership and stable employment. In fact, Gen Xers are the second
largest age group for volunteering (AmeriCorps, 2018).
Middle-class Gen X women have grown up in an era of changing women’s
roles; more are working and contributing to the household income than did
their mothers. A few years ago, a Pew Research Study found women the
primary breadwinners in four out of ten households with children (Wang
et al., 2013). Many balance multiple jobs: raising their children, managing
careers and homes while tending to their Baby Boomer/aging parents. Their
contribution to household income influences their role in philanthropic

decisions giving them more confidence and power.
More women in this generation than any other postponed marriage or
children until later in life. This means that as well as seeking out married
philanthropic prospects, philanthropy professionals need to pay attention
to single female Gen Xers. The number of single-person households in the
2000s nearly doubled compared with the 1970s.
GenXers don’t write big checks like their parents, but do give smaller
amounts regularly. They tend to align with causes based on family tradi-
tion. Similar to all other giving generations they prioritize health, religion,
and local social services. As they enter their prime giving years, philan-
thropic observers are calling the Generation X and Millennials the leaders
of a “Golden Age of Giving” (Crutchfield et al., 2011; Lenkowski, 2007).
Increased financial resources, including inheritance and earned income, will
propel their giving power and make them a force in philanthropy.
The Millennials
Why does this group get so much attention? Well, recently surpassing the
number of Baby Boomers, they are now our largest population at 67.1
million. Fifty-one percent of them are donors giving $20.1 billion per year
(Rovner, 2018, p. 8). This group will not reach their peak giving for another
20–25 years, and when they do—watch out. The shift to more indepen-
dent thinking and giving becomes evident with the Millennials. They are less
influenced by their parents, more willing to explore their own interests, and
different from other givers in three additional ways:
• They are active. Forty-two percent say they want to help companies
develop future products and services.
• They are more peer driven. They trust the messages they get from their
peers.
• They are more trust sensitive than other donors. They expect and want
transparency from the organizations they interact with and will give if they
have a trusting relationship with staff (Josephson, 2019).
Millennial women are taking a more active role than any previous gener-
ation in marital- decision-making-for-charitable-giving, perhaps due to the
higher number of them working outside the home. They view philanthropic
decision-making with their spouse as a way to deepen their relationship.
208 L. A. Buntz
In Chapter 5 we discussed the patterns of decision-making among couples

emphasizing that many couples do this jointly. Younger women are more
willing than Baby Boomers to take a stand on what they want, demonstrating
independence while seeking to engage with their partner in meaningful
discussions. Womengive 16—Giving in Young Adulthood: Gender Differences
and Changing Patterns Across Generations found that among young married
couples who give large amounts ($100 or more for pre-Boomers and $600
or more for Gen X/Millennials), Millennial women had some influence
over marital decision-making for charitable gifts 83.7% of the time in the
2000s versus 73.4% for preBoomer women (women who were in a marital
relationship in the 1970s) (Mesch et al., 2016).
• Millennials are more likely than older donors to support new causes
(Joslyn, 2019).
• In 2017, 48% of Millennials increased the number of charities they
supported (Joslyn, 2019).
• 71% of Millennial women said they give in the moment (Fidelity, 2016,
p. 3).
• 75% are motivated by their hearts versus their heads (Fidelity, 2016, p. 3).
• The causes that Millennials prioritize will certainly change over time, but
hunger and access to food has been a top priority, access to healthcare #2
and protecting and preserving the environment #3 (Fidelity, 2016, p. 7).
Generation X, Millennials, and Gen Z all value volunteering and spreading

the word of need and causes through their peer-to-peer networks. Here are
two examples of Millennials in action.
Philanthropy Women
Kiersten Marek is a social worker and founder of Philanthropy Women, a
website and information portal for women interested in women’s philan-
thropy with an emphasis on feminist funders. As a GenXer interested in
philanthropy, she wanted to shine a light on the need for more gender
equality. She didn’t have the resources to become a substantial financial
donor to all the causes that were near and dear to her. Her solution was
the development of a mobile platform that helps recruit donors and spread
the women’s philanthropy message by making the latest information about it
easily sharable. Her audience is HNW donors who have focused their giving
on women and girls and the women who work within organizations funded
by these donors.
“I see many Millennial women donors shifting back toward racial and
gender lens investing in their giving and advocacy,” she says. “Donors like
Priscilla Chan and Padma Lakshmi are calling attention to the very different
health and social needs of women and finding ways to fund work that will
improve women’s access to health, education, and job opportunities. Millen-
nials have a much keener awareness of what racism and sexism look like
and how to respond to it” (Marek, personal communication, May 4, 2021).
Philanthropy Women is one such response from the first generation to have
had their teenage years enhanced by the Internet.
A Time for Art

If younger donors have limited resources, try engaging them through volun-
teering. Several years ago, United Way launched a “Time for Art” event for
their young donor group. The purpose was to engage younger donors in
giving time, not money. Local artists were recruited to donate art to United
Way for an auction event where all the art was displayed. Artists were present
to talk about their work, promote their art, and share their stories of invest-
ments in the community. Through a silent auction donors bid for the art
with commitments of volunteer hours to local nonprofits. Naturally, the
donor committing the most volunteer hours won the artwork—but she didn’t
collect it until completing the community volunteer commitment, recording
hours and reporting them to United Way, which released the object of art.
This inventive program enabled donors to become familiar with local causes
and organizations they may not have known about, to learn more about art
and local artists, and, to collect some nice pieces for their homes or offices
while feeling good about their contributions. Over time many of these young
donors became financial supporters of United Way and other nonprofits.
Generation Z
Generation Z has been labeled the “philanthro-kids” for their extensive
involvement in fundraising, donating, and volunteering (Jarvis, 2021). The
oldest of them are just hitting their mid-twenties and yet 44% of them give,
totaling $3.2 billion annually (Rovner, 2015). One-third view giving as part
210 L. A. Buntz
of their legacy. One in ten want to start a charity or become an activist for a
cause versus developing an estate plan (Jarvis, 2021).
Growing up with the internet, these digital natives can’t imagine a world
without technology. Eighty-two percent of Generation Z versus 38% of
Boomers are willing to donate via a mobile device (Rovner, 2018). More
than 57% had done research on an organization before making a gift (Jarvis,
2021) and are highly engaged with news outlets and media as sources of
information. These donors are going to rely on technology to give them
answers.
Gen Z may expect a different level of personal contact with organizational
staff. They tend to blur the lines between their work and personal life and
are motivated by having relationships with fundraisers. They will want access
to as much information as possible, emphasizing the transparency of giving
and the impact of their gifts. Show them results and give updates regularly.
Finally, remember this generation identifies with causes not organizations, so
don’t expect long-term donor loyalty.

with the New Generations of Women Donors
1. Think about your work with them as a long-term investment. If you
begin a relationship with a donor when she is 30, you, or your organi-
zation, could connect with her over the next 50 years—if you’re lucky
enough to stay in contact.
2. Recognize that they change their priorities often.
3. Recognize that they are cause driven, not organization driven.
4. Their access to data and information will be instantaneous and media
outlets will constantly be drawing them into new national and global
needs. Their menu of options to give will be vast.
5. Technology is their friend, embrace and use it. Think of it as a comple-
ment to your personal connection to a donor. Become a social media
expert.
6. Poor social media presence is the #1 reason Gen Z will stop giving to
your cause.
7. Report on your progress and how you are “changing the world.” They
want to be inspired.
8. Create peer-to-peer giving contests.
9. Encourage them to tell their friends about their philanthropy.
10. Create projects they can do as a group.
11. Communicate in pictures, video, sound bites and facts.

12. Track their professional and wealth capacity growth. Congratulate them
when they achieve and give them positive feedback on their progress.
13. Engage them in decision-making. Give them a seat at the table even if
they don’t have the same capacity to give large-scale gifts as some other
donors. They don’t want to be on the “junior board.” They want to be
on THE board of directors.
14. Offer a wide set of giving options. This group will use nontraditional
methods, crowdfunding, workplace fundraisers, purchasing products,
Giving Circles, point of sale (donating at a store when checking out).
15. This group will be more diverse in ethnicity, interests and activities, polit-
ically and financially than previous generations. Diversify your staff so
you can engage the broadest range of donors.
16. Build in some FUN.
Co-create the Future

This brief overview of diversity in giving and the future generations of donors
provides a glimpse into the possibility to engage a broader array of advocates,
volunteers, and donors.
Increasing the diversity of organizational staff and leadership will help
engage more women of color and the next generation of donors. There
are pools of passionate, committed women in your community who are
waiting to be asked. There are significant opportunities to learn about
diverse communities, if everyone begins to listen with open ears and minds.
And, there are new institutional models developing every year, initiated by
philanthropists who have grown tired of waiting for fundraising teams or
philanthropic foundations to bring them new options. Convene thought
leaders to help you and your organization think differently about how to
solve the complex and systemic problems of the present and the future. Join
or lead these discussions and do some research. Stay ahead of the curve and
most importantly, ask women for their thoughts and ideas!
Bibliography
AAPI Data, CSIUCR. (2020, September). State of philanthropy among Asian Amer-
icans and Pacific Islanders. Retrieved September 30, 2020, from https://aapidata.
com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/aapi-state-of-philanthropy-2020-report.pdf
212 L. A. Buntz
AmeriCorps. (2018). Volunteering in U.S. hits record high. Retrieved August

10, 2021, from https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USCNBCS/bulletins/
21b2aa
Asia’s women billionaries in philanthropy: working from within. Retrieved
December 23, 2021, from https://wealthmanagement.bnpparibus/asia/en/expert-
voices/asias-women-billionaires-in-philanthropy-working-from-within.html
Asset, M. (2019). Millennial consumers primed to reshape the US economy. Retrieved
October 25, 2020, from https://www.globalxetfs.com/millennial-consumers-pri
med-to-reshape-the-economy
Ax, J. (2021). Asian American business leaders launch $250 million effort to fight
hate. Retrieved December 23, 2021, from https://www.reuters.com/world/us/
us-foundation-launches-with-125-min-business-leaders-combat-anti-asian-hate-
2021-05-03/
Bearman, J., Carboni, J., Eikenberry, A., & Franklin, J. (2017). The landscape
of giving circles/collective giving groups in the U.S. The Women’s Philanthropy
Institute.
Blackbaud. (2018). The next generation of America giving: The charitable habits of
generation Z, millennials, generation X, baby boomers, and matures.
Board Source. (2017). 2017, In the News. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from https://
boardsource.org/news/2017/09/nonprofit-boards-still-not-diverse-report-finds/
Budiman, A., & Ruiz, N. (2021). Key facts about Asian origin groups in the U.S.
Pew Research Center. Retrieved April 30, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.
org/facts-tank/2012/04/29/key-facts-about-asian-origin-groups-in-the-us/
Burton, B. S. (2020, February 3). The issue of racism in the fundraising profes-
sion, AFP. Retrieved July 15, 2020, from https://afpglobal.org/issue-racism-fun
draising-profession
Crutchfield, L., Kanna L., & Kramer, K. (2011). Do more than give. Jossey Bass.
Di Mento, M. (2019, August 6). How quiet donors became champions for black
giving. Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved July 10, 2020, from https://www.phi
lanthropy.com/article/how-quiet-donors-became-champions-for-black-giving/
Di Mento, M. (2020). Latino community foundation builds a new generation of
donors. Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved March 15, 2021, from https://www.
philanthropy.com/newsletter/philanthropy-today/2020-10-20
Fidelity Charitable. (2016). Women and giving: The impact of generation and gender
on philanthropy.
Gittell, R., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a
development strategy. Sage Publications.
Goodwin, A. (2018). Hispanic philanthropy and the moral imagination. Retrieved
June 23, 2020, from https://blog.philanthropy.iupui.edu/2018/09/19/hispanic-
philanthropy-and-the-moral-imagination/
Hadero, H. (2021). Donations for Asian American groups surge after killings.
Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnic
ity-shootings-coronavirus-pandemic-philanthropy-atlanta-96ad457055441cbc4e
ab4c48389fa85
Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67 (1), 130–138.
Haynes, E., & Stiffman, E. (2020). How to connect with donors of color. Chronicle
of Philanthropy.
Hong Hoang. (2021). Retrieved August 4, 2021, from https://vn.linkedin.com/in/
hong-hoang-7b44bb3
https://asianwomensgivingcircle.org/. Retrieved July 30, 2020.
https://racialequity.org/. Retrieved July 10, 2020.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/233324/median-household-income-in-the-uni
ted-states-by-race-rethnic-group/. Retrieved April 10, 2020.
https://www.Kasasa.com/exchange/community-rising/generations-explained.
Retrieved October 10, 2020.
Jarvis, A. (2021). Generational giving: Generation Z—Giving trends, preferences and
patterns. Retrieved June 3, 2021, from https://www.qgiv.com/blog/generational-
giving-generation-z-giving-trends-preferences-patterns
Josephson, B. (2019). How are millennials different from other donors? National
Center on Family Philanthropy. Retrieved April 2, 2020, from https://www.ncfp.
org/2017/12/26/how-are-millennials-different-than-other-donors/
Joselyn, H. (2019, February). A youth movement. Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Kasasa. (2021). Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y and Gen Z Explained . Retrieved December
29, 2021, from https://www.kasasa.com/articles/generations/gen-x-gen-y-gen-z
Lenkowski, L. (2007). Big philanthropy. The Wilson Quarterly, 31(1), 47–51.
Lindsay, D. (2017). Diversity among nonprofit leaders still a long way off. Chronicle
of Philanthropy. Retrieved August 14, 2019, from https://boardsource.org/news/
2017/09/diversity-among-nonprofit-leaders-still-long-way-off-report-says/
Mesch, D., Osili, U., Ackerman, J., Bergdoll, J., Williams K., Pactor A., & Thayer
A. (2019). Womengive 19: Gender and giving across communities of color. Women’s
Mesch, D., Ottoni-Wilhelm, M., Osili, U., Han, X., Pactor, A., Ackerman, J., &
Tolley, K. (2016). Womengive 16: Giving in young adulthood: Gender differences
and changing patterns across the generations. Women Philanthropy Institute.
Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity, Race Forward and Foundation Center.
(2018). Infographic. Retrieved February 15, 2020, from https://racialequity.org/
pre-graphics/
PND by Candid. (2018). Ms. Foundation announces new strategy focused on women,
girls of color. Retrieved June 11, 2020, from https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/
news/ms-foundation-announces-new-strategy-foucsed-on-women-girls-of-color
PowerUp Fund.org. (2019). Retrieved January 6, 2021, from https://powerupfund.
org/
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. Simon and Schuster.
Rovner, M. (2015). Diversity in giving: The changing landscape of American philan-
thropy. Blackbaud Institute.
214 L. A. Buntz
Rovner, M. (2018). The next generation of American giving: The charitable habits
of generation Z, millennials, generation X, baby boomers and matures. Blackbaud
Institute.
Salisbury, D. (2019, March 29). Will gen Z and Gen Y save the economic day?
California Review Management. Retrieved October 4, 2021, from https://cmr.ber
keley.edu/2019/03/gen-z
Shapiro, R. A. (2018). Pragmatic philanthropy. Palgrave Macmillian.
Turner Moffit, A. (2015). Harness the power of the purse: Winning women investors.
Rare Bird Books.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). Retrieved August 10, 2021, from https://www.census.
gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-sta
tes-population-much-more-multiracial.html
Vaid, U., & Maxton, A. (2017). The apparitional donor: Understanding and engaging
high net worth donors of color. The Vaid Group.
Wang, W., Parker, K., & Taylor, P. (2013). Breadwinner moms. Pew Research Center.
Retrieved September 28, 2019, from https://pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29
15
A Call to Action
As we have journeyed through the history of women’s philanthropy, iden-

tified the milestones in its development, outlined the steps in creating a
women’s philanthropy initiative, shared the stories of women who have given
to causes, and learned from women who have led organizations engaging
women philanthropists, we have come to a place of choice and action.
Can a fourth wave of women’s philanthropy happen? What will it take to
make women’s philanthropy an integrated and essential part of our work as
fundraisers? When will it be the norm, not the exception?
The history of women’s philanthropy spans more than one hundred
years. During these decades fund development professionals have grown and
learned about how women give. Systems and organizations that support and
engage women as leaders, donors, volunteers, and clients have been created.
Women donors have grown in number and risen to the challenge of giving
more. The impact of women’s presence and growing influence in our society
cannot be denied. Yes, there has been progress, but there is more to do. We
need to keep moving forward.
What Can Fundraisers Do?

As fundraisers and professionals who work in philanthropy daily, we see the
needs and the opportunities, but too few of us have asked women to be our

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_15
216 L. A. Buntz
partners. We haven’t engaged their knowledge, talents, connections, testimo-

nials, or bank accounts. Until we start asking, we only reinforce the old beliefs
that women can’t contribute or help us achieve the change we desire.
The six-step model outlined in the book is a process that is linear and
circular. Each step can build on the previous one, enriching and deepening
your connection with a woman donor until you reach a pinnacle of align-
ment. But relationships are rarely linear. They are a continuous loop of
interactions, fluid, active, and ever-changing. Assessments can occur many
times, a donor’s interests and passion may change with life experiences, and
asks, stewardship, and celebrations can and hopefully will happen frequently.
Talk with your professional colleagues and ask them what they know about
women’s philanthropy and share the tools, suggestions, and questionnaires
from this book. Ask a group of fundraising professionals to host seminars
or learning opportunities about women’s philanthropy, incorporating how to
work with a diverse group of donors. Reassess your own prior interactions
with women donors and make a commitment to learn more. Most impor-
tantly start talking to your women donors and ask them what works? How
do they want to be engaged with your organization and you?
What Can Organizations Do?

Every organization that is dependent on fundraising to achieve its mission
needs to thoroughly assess its connection to women donors? The process
outlined in previous chapters is a guide to help leaders determine if and how
a women’s philanthropy initiative fits with their organization. Examine the
organization’s strategic and fund development plan and ask why your orga-
nization would want to pursue a women’s philanthropy initiative. Perhaps
professional development is a place to start, teaching staff about how women
give, or integrating new practices into a traditional fundraising program. If
your organization has already been actively recruiting women donors, you
may be ready to build an entirely new initiative.
Integrating and fully engaging more women in your fundraising process
will most likely increase the total donor base and perhaps increase the
total dollars raised. Think about women’s philanthropy as a value added to
your fundraising strategies. Most importantly, remember the full support of
organizational leadership will be necessary to achieve success.
15 A Call to Action 217
What Can the Philanthropic Community Do?

If the face of a philanthropist is truly changing, then the face of the philan-
thropic community needs to reflect this new reality. The leadership within the
fundraising community is growing more diverse daily, but not fast enough.
Listen to the voices of those who have not been an integral part of the conver-
sation, invite them in, and fully invest in their ideas about change. Make
room at the table for new partners. Implement diversity, equity, and inclusion
policies and practices, including gender lens and impact investing. Provide
women fundraisers opportunities for career advancements and protect them
from harassment.
Make a commitment to continue learning about women’s philanthropy
and promote opportunities for content experts to share their knowledge and
research. The literature on the topic is still scarce and very few conferences
have had women’s philanthropy as an educational session. Professional orga-
nizations have the power to change the agenda and conversation. Finally,
recognize women philanthropists who have made significant contributions
and women in leadership roles.
What Can Women Donors Do?

Begin by asking yourself what you are interested in and what fuels your
passions in life? What do you want to see changed in your community or
country? How could you get involved? Call the nonprofit or organization that
focuses on the cause you care about and set up an appointment. If you don’t
know where to start, call your local United Way or Community Foundation.
They can direct you and answer your questions. If you are uncertain about
doing this, ask a friend to go along with you. Attend community events where
nonprofits talk about their work and listen, read, and learn. Reach out to a
recognized and trusted fund development professional in your community
and have a conversation. Fundraisers can be guides and mentors.
Learn and study your financial situation and capacity. What and where are
your assets, how are they invested, and how could you use them to accom-
plish your goals? Then list and prioritize your values and interests. Write a
mission statement about what you hope to accomplish with your philan-
thropy. Volunteer, if you aren’t ready to start giving. If you are giving, start to
imagine how to do more and engage your friends and family. You can take
control of your own philanthropy and create a legacy.
218 L. A. Buntz
Create Your Own Story

When I began this project, I believed that when women philanthropists
shared their stories it would encourage others to act.
As I continued to explore women’s philanthropy I realized it is also
about our stories. Every woman who has helped a person in need or supported
a cause, volunteered at school or on a campaign, served on a board, given a
million dollars or ten dollars, has been a woman philanthropist. Women are
masters at collaboration and cooperation. Working together we have accom-
plished so much and created exciting and innovative networks for change.
Share your stories or create new ones with a group of friends, or fellow
givers. Encourage women to talk about their philanthropy.
Now I am asking you to think about your story. Who has inspired you?
What models of giving have you observed? What have you done or what
could you do? You don’t have to be a professional fundraiser or an organiza-
tional executive to get engaged. You just have to care enough to take the first
step.
Dorothy Day, the Catholic social activist said the greatest challenge is
“how to bring about a revolution of the heart.” How can we in the field
of fundraising help women to use their hearts and heads to begin to act?
So, as we end this journey, here are some questions to consider. “When
will you step into the work? When will you step up your giving of time,
talent, testimony, ties, and treasure? When will you start engaging women
and helping them blossom into generous givers? What kind of crisis will it
take to prompt you to act? What kind of opportunities do you want to create?
When will you become a part of the women’s philanthropy movement and
build a women’s initiative? There’s an old African proverb that says, “If you
want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.” Let’s not wait
another moment; come join me. Together, we can create change for women
and the world.
Correction to: Generosity and Gender
Correction to:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0
The original version of this book was inadvertently missed to amend the
author’s revised corrections, which have been now corrected. The corrections
to the book have been updated with the changes.
The updated version of the book can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature C1

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0_16
Index
0–9 Arrillaga-Andreessen, Laura 186

4W Initiative 161 Asian American and Pacific Islanders
5224GOOD 106–108, 113 (AAPI) 201–203
Asian American Foundation 202
Asian Women’s Giving Circle
A (ASWGC) 194, 195, 203
Abrams, Julie Castro 175, 176 Assessment 1, 53, 64, 76–78, 80,
Achievement 1, 35, 79, 149, 151, 81, 83, 89, 110, 158, 216
152, 155, 160, 173–175, 177 Association of Fundraising
Acknowledgment 1, 57, 62, Professionals 135, 193
133–136, 139, 142 Awareness 1, 15, 17, 24–26, 29, 35,
Action 1, 2, 15, 16, 18, 30, 43, 44, 40, 45, 73, 82, 91, 103, 109,
51, 73, 77, 92, 99, 103, 115, 112, 114, 116, 125, 157, 163,
124, 135, 138, 144, 152, 181, 164, 203, 204, 209
204, 215
Addams, Jane 14, 163
Affinity groups 71, 72, 194 B
Alignment 1, 65, 89, 94, 216 Baby Boomers 29, 49, 181, 205, 207
American Farmland Trust 163, 166 Ballweg, Diane 33–35
American Heart Association (AHA) Big Brothers Big Sisters 123
73 Black Woman’s Guide to
American Red Cross 14, 73 Philanthropy 198
Argilagos, Ana Marie 200 Blue Meridian 188
Arizona State University (ASU) 160, Board Source 193
161 Bonding 41, 142, 194, 195
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive 219
license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90380-0
220 Index
Bridging 194, 195 D

Brinkerhoff, Peter 109 Dartmouth College 108
Brown, Eddie 197 Delgado, Amalia Brindis 199–201
Brown, Marion 196 de Tocqueville, Alexis 130
Brown, Melanie 197 Dong, Sutian 173
Brown, Sylvia 197 Donor Centered Fundraising 135
Buhlig, Gretchen 160, 161 Donor relations 133, 134
Burke, Penelope 135 Dual wealth transfer 49
Duggal, Anu 173
C
Capital Sisters International 182 E
Carson, Rachel 163 Emerson Collective 185, 186
Centennial Circle 108 Endres Manufacturing Family
Center for Spirituality and Healing Foundation 33
33 Environment 21, 34, 37, 38, 74, 85,
Center for Talent Innovations (CTI) 91, 105, 123, 149, 151,
90, 91 163–168, 171, 180, 185, 204,
Centre for Addiction and Mental 205
Health (CAMH) 156 Envisioning 112
CHANGE 204 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) 15,
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation 31 16, 140
Chicago Foundation for Women 19, Evaluation 104, 116, 117
96, 97, 135
Chronicle of Philanthropy 54, 55, 71, F
122, 135, 149, 196 Family Caregiver’s Center 153
Circle 1, 61, 73–75, 94, 138 Femo-anthropy 11
Collaboration 18, 31, 41, 65, 71, Forum of Regional Associations of
72, 79, 114, 144, 165, 179, Grantmakers 31
183, 189, 218 Frankl, Victor 141
Collective Giving Research Group Freed, Rachael 33
31 Friedan, Betty 15, 16
Community building 52, 114, 116
ConnectHer 40
Corporate Philanthropy 17 G
Council for the Advancement and Gary, Tracy 18, 23, 38, 39, 92
Support of Education (CASE) Gates Foundation 22, 31, 111, 122,
20 145, 152, 187, 197
Council of Foundations 17 Gates, Melinda 9, 50, 60, 114, 152,
Crutchfield, L. 64, 87, 117, 207 173, 187, 188
Culture 2, 15, 53, 78–81, 86, 94, Gender 1, 3, 17, 22, 24, 54, 55, 62,
183, 202–204 78–81, 86, 87, 89, 108, 113,
Cycle of Organizational 114, 144, 156, 162, 165, 179,
Development 104 183–185, 208, 217
Index 221
Gender lens investing 183, 184, 208 Hull House 14

Generation X 205–208 Human-Centered Design 115
Generation Y 205, 206 Hunt, Swanee 25, 52
Generation Z 205, 206, 209
Generosity 2, 43, 53, 154, 194
Gilligan, Carol 31 I
Girl Scouts 140, 141 Identify Specific Affinity Groups 194
Girls Who Code 173 Igram, Lila 40
Giving Circles (GC) 31, 32, 163, Impact investing 62, 179–184
168, 194, 195, 211 Impact investors 180, 181
Giving USA 55, 122, 149 Inherited Wealth-Abigail Disney 51
Global Impact Investing Network Initiative for Racial Equity 202
(GIIN) 180 Initiatives 3, 60, 73, 74, 76, 84, 85,
Global Wealth Study 49 91, 103–105, 110, 111,
Goals and objectives 103, 112, 113, 114–117, 158, 159, 163, 167,
115 168, 179, 181, 182, 189, 193,
Golden Seeds Venture 173 200
Goodall, Jane 164 Intersectionality 113, 114, 193, 198
GoPhilanthropic Foundation 38 Iowa Women’s Foundation (IWF)
Grant McLeod, H. 117 109–111
Gratitude 130, 133, 134, 146, 147
Grumm, Christine 18, 19, 24
J
Jacquelyn and Gregory Zehner
Foundation 61
H
Jewish Federation of North America
Happiness 89, 121, 124
137
Harmon, Jocelyn 198
Johnson, Yolanda F. 198
Harris, Carla 44, 45, 135
Hayes, Nancy 171–173, 193
Herman, Karen 42 K
Her Royal Highness the Crown Kansas City Community
Princess Mette-Marit of Foundation 42
Norway 187 Kanze, Dana 172
High Net Worth (HNW) 10, 29, Katen-Bahensky, Donna 177
60, 67, 91, 109, 122, 123, Kohler Company 144, 145
151, 158, 167, 174, 179, 181, Kohler, Laura 50, 144
182, 188, 195, 208
Hill, Lyda 151
Hispanics in Philanthropy (HIP) L
194, 199–201 LaDuke, Winona 165, 166
Hong, Hoang 204, 205 Lady Bountiful 13
How Women Give 175 Lake, Katrina 173
How Women Invest 175 Latino Community Foundation
How Women Lead 175, 176 (LCF) 195
222 Index
Latinx 199, 201, 202 New Ventures in Philanthropy 31

Lee, Hali 195 New York Women’s Foundation 10,
Liberian Mass Action for Peace 52 16, 23, 52, 53
Life satisfaction 36, 89, 90
Linkage, Ability and Interest
Inventory (LAI) 65 O
Love Never Fails 176 O’Donnell, Tiffany 177
Luks, Allan 123 Oliver Wiand, Dawn 109–111, 114
Omidyar Network 117, 186
Ontario 156
M Orman, Suze 98, 177
Marek, Kiersten 208, 209 Osili, Una 123, 181
Marshall, Lynette 75, 76
Mason, Sally 75
P
Matures/Silent Generation 205
Paralanguage 126
Maverick Collective 187, 188
Philanthro-kids 209
McCarthy, Kathryn 13, 24
Philanthropy 1, 2, 9–11, 13, 17,
McIntyre, Dee Ann 36–39
20–22, 25, 29–31, 35, 36, 38,
McIntyre Foundation 37
39, 43–45, 53, 55–59, 62, 74,
Mesch, Debra 22, 29, 36, 39, 56,
80, 84–86, 92, 96, 99, 106,
60, 65, 76, 90, 91, 194, 195,
114, 117, 121, 123, 130, 145,
208
149, 150, 152, 159, 160, 175,
Metrics 104, 116, 117, 155, 180
179, 185, 193, 197–200,
Millennials 144, 181, 203, 206–209.
202–205, 207, 217
See also Generation Y
Philanthropy Together 32
Million Dollar List 30
Philanthropy Women 208, 209
Mission 16, 26, 32, 34, 38, 53, 65,
Pollin, Irene 150
78–80, 92, 105, 116, 128,
PowerUp Fund 199, 201
162, 184, 217
Project Sage 2.0 183
Mitvalsky, Cheryle 125
Prospera 176
Moola Hoop 172
Moore Foundation 164
Morgan Stanley 44, 45, 98, 180, Q
181, 185 Quimby, Roxanne 164
Moves management 94
R
N Rachel’s Network 163, 166
Nassif, Helen G. 145, 146 Radical Generosity 184
National Network of Women as Ramsey, Diane 177
Philanthropists 21, 31 Return on Equity (ROE) 184
National Organization for Women’s Return on Investment (ROI) 136
(NOW) 16 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Netweavers 115 (RWJF) 152
Index 223
Robin Hood Foundation 52 Thompson, Roselyn Dawson 184

Rockefeller Foundation 10, 49, 179 Time for Art 209
Roob, Nancy 188 Tocqueville Society 130
Toronto 156
Transactional giving 93
S Transformational gifts 93, 94, 96
San Francisco State University 171 Transition 93, 104, 173
Saujani, Reshma 173 Trees Forever 165
School for the Arts 37 Trent, Tererai 96
Science, Technology, Engineering,
Mathematics, Medicine
(STEMM) 162 U
Shaw Hardy, Sondra 19–21, 31, 32 United Way Worldwide 45, 56, 58,
SheEO 184 59, 71, 72, 106, 130, 155, 209
Simon, Judy Sharken 104 UnityPoint Health-St. Lukes 146
Six C’s 20 University of Iowa (UI) 75
Social capital 32, 194, 195 University of Wisconsin 20, 34, 81,
Social impact 78, 117, 180, 188 95, 159, 161, 196
STARBRIGHT Foundation 171
Statement 53, 79, 92, 172, 217
Steinem, Gloria 15, 16, 99, 177 V
Stewardship 133–135, 216 Vaid, Urvashi 195, 196
Stitch Fix 173 Values 2, 24, 30, 35, 36, 38, 39, 78,
Strategy 3, 45, 75, 76, 93, 94, 98, 89, 91, 92, 94, 99, 217
103, 107, 109, 115, 155, 173, Vision 9, 18, 21, 24, 71, 78, 81, 87,
197, 201 103, 105, 111, 124, 187
Structure 1, 2, 17, 18, 23, 36, 54, Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and
74, 77, 82, 103–105 Ambiguous (VUCA) 206
Sustainable investing 180 Voluntary specialization 55
Systems Theory 74
W
T Washington Women’s Foundation 31
Target Analytics 11, 122 Wealthism 51
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 122 Well-being 24, 89, 97, 162
Taylor, Martha 19–21, 81, 159, 161 Wells, Ida B. 15
Texas Women’s Foundation 184 Westbrook, Mary 106–108, 113
The Apparitional Donor 196 Willoughby, Colleen 31
The Audacious Project 188 WISE Senior Services 171
The Daphne Foundation 52, 53 Women and Foundations 17
The Female Founders Fund 173 Women and Well-Being in
The generosity gene 41 Wisconsin and the World 161
The Generosity Network 127 Women Connect 178
The Giving Pledge 50, 151 Women Donor Network 51
224 Index
Women for the Land 163, 166 Women’s Philanthropy Institute

Women Lead Change 177 (WPI) 21, 22, 29–31, 42, 55,
Women Moving Millions (WMM) 76, 79, 89, 91, 112, 116, 159,
10, 24, 25, 34, 35, 61, 62, 79, 194
90 Women’s Philanthropy Program at
Women of color 15, 182, 193–195, Indiana University 39
197, 198, 200, 211 Women’s Recovery Services 176
Women of Color in Fundraising and Women United 72, 85, 107, 155,
Philanthropy 198 194
Women of the Storm 164 World Vision 35
Women’s Foundation of Colorado
(WFCO) 184
Women’s Funding Network (WFN) Y
18, 19, 23–25, 62, 111, 117, Yoshiko, Shinohara 203
184 Yunus, Muhammad 180
Women’s Giving Circles
International 32
Women’s International Study Center Z
38 Zhonghui, You 203

Generosity Gender: Lois A. Buntz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Generosity Gender: Lois A. Buntz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Generosity Gender: Lois A. Buntz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

L O I S A.

“An informative and insightful philanthropic resource for those dedicated to

“Generosity and Gender explores the evolution of women’s philanthropy and

ISBN 978-3-030-90379-4 ISBN 978-3-030-90380-0 (eBook)

prompted the creation of new organizations including the Women’s Funding

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, USA Lois A. Buntz

Writing is a solitary process; creating a book is a collaborative endeavor.

Lee Roper-Batker, former CEO of the Minnesota Women’s Foundation;

All of my colleagues at United Way, Association of Fundraising Profes-

Using Your Story 32

7 Alignment: Helping Donors Find Their Passion 89

Engaging Family and Friends 138

Women Impact Investors 181

4W Women, Well-Being in Wisconsin and the World

Fig. 3.1 The continuum of awareness 26

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Definitions: Generosity and Philanthropy

Initiatives versus Programs

frequently hinder an organization’s ability to engage women. Key questions

Chapter 12: Achievements: Women Investing in Business and Lead-

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 9

The First Wave

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 13

1931, her investment in social change was a personal commitment as well as

The Second Wave

I wanted to change the world” (Clohesy, personal communication, June 22,

Awareness Built Networks

Christine Grumm had served as the president of Chicago Foundation for

• Democratize: Share problems and solutions, with everyone finding a seat

The Third Wave

how to encourage more philanthropic giving from women, especially major

Overwhelmed with the subsequent number of calls and inquiries they

stable, well-established administrative home was the goal. In 2003, Cheryle

Helen LaKelly Hunt

to increase her participation in global women’s philanthropy and grew more

Women Moving Millions—Voice, Values, Vision

Questions and Suggestions for Fundraisers

1. Why did women create their own philanthropic funds or funding

Expanding the number of women interested in your cause and enhancing

1. Where on this continuum of awareness would you place your current

Fig. 3.1 The continuum of awareness

the issue? Why do you need support/philanthropic investments? How

Johnson, J. M. (2017). Funding feminism: Monied women, philanthropy, and the

If developing awareness of the history of American women’s philanthropic

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 29

Using Your Story

(a) realizing your story can help others

While looking at data and analyzing the potential of donor prospects is

a diverse array of women-led missions and businesses” (Ballweg, personal

Identifying Interests and Values

they become more engaged in philanthropic investments. In future chapters,

Dee Ann McIntyre

biting sense of humor, and a generous spirit. He had a history of philan-

recognized and new grassroots organizations launched. One of her most

Influencing the Next Generation

best transmit “the generosity gene” to succeeding generations. A recent study

Women can influence the philanthropic behavior of their children, specif-

Giving Counsel: Mentoring

The stories of how women learned to be fruitfully philanthropic are as