One of the highlights of last week was hosting seminars for representatives of 40 UK charities on fundraising from America.  One perennial question is “how much is given, by whom, where, and to whom, internationally?” 

The Hudson Institute, a Washington nonprofit think tank, has answered some of these questions in the second edition of its Index of Global Philanthropy.  This year it’s gone beyond the USA to include Europe with sections on US international Giving and Other Donors’ International Giving.

The publication is available on-line at http://gpr.hudson.org/files/publications/IndexGlobalPhilanthropy2007.pdf   And there are more Fundraising from America seminars on Tuesday 4 September http://www.chapel-york.com/services/seminartemp.html for details.

New bloggers are always welcome.  Today Grants & Resources is hitting 10,000 plus readers with the first announcement of this blog.  A few postings give a flavour of what is planned.  Enjoy.  Comment.  And sign up now for short email updates with information about new bloggers and new blogging.  Just to the right of this blog.  Any questions off blog david.wickert@chapel-york.com

An interesting study identifies some unexpected behaviour amongst American donors.  Does it resonate with fundraisers in other places?
Psychologists and economists at Princeton University who study altruism addressed questions like: Why do some crises elicit outpouring of support and others don’t?  Why are donors more sympathetic to the plight of an individual victim than to mass suffering? 
For example, one group were shown a picture of a victim of starvation in Mali with statistics about the crisis, and another group were just shown the picture.  The picture alone won the charity more money.  Fundraisers commented that they want to appeal to the heart and the mind, but if they do there’s a real risk of undermining the heart.
In another study donors were asked to give money to fight hunger overseas.  In one scenario the money would go to Rokia; in a second to a boy, Moussa; and in the third to both Rokia and Moussa.  People gave equal amounts in the first two scenarios, donated less money to the two children combined.
Donors were also turned off by the thought of their gifts being used to pay overhead costs.  In one study, when money was divided between charities - both spending $1,000 to save 5 lives but one spending $800 on service delivery and $200 on advertising and the other spending $900 on service delivery and $100 on advertising, people gave more to the second even though it was not as efficient in its use of dollars.
In another experiment people gave $25 dollars to participate in a 5 mile run and only $15 to attend a picnic, both arranged to help tsunami victims.  Researchers concluded that a walk over hot coals would do more to encourage donors than a gala ball! 
For more details go the The Chronicle of Philanthropy on-line:  http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=2700

Former President Clinton is in Africa and he is writing a daily Blog.  At least I like to think that it actually is Bill Clinton writing it!  Whatever, it’s great communication and great fundraising  http://clintonafrica.org/2007/07/19/my-journey-has-begun/  I hope it works for Africa.   For me another truly insightful African website is http://www.pambazuka.org/  It is alarmingly prolific and carries some magnificent stuff.  If Clinton is style, Pambazuka is substance.  Fundraising needs both.

Nelson Mandela is 89 today.  According to Associated Press he is launching a humanitarian campaign along with former President Jimmy Carter, ex UN General Secretary Kofi Annan and other “elders” of the global village. 
The idea comes from Richard “Virgin” Branson and Peter Gabriel the musician to create a world council of elders to tackle issues such as conflicts, AIDS and global warming. 
“This group of international leaders will share how they intend to work together to contribute their wisdom, independent leadership and integrity in addressing some of the world’s toughest problems” said a statement from the organizers.
But if they didn’t or couldn’t do it when they had positions of responsibility and authority, and were in some cases the democratically elected representatives of millions of people, why will it be different now?  I don’t want their answers, I want them to take a back seat and point to the younger generations of leaders and potential leaders.  It was actually Kofi Annan who said: “Young people are the most precious resource our planet possesses.”
We must listen to new voices.  I nominate the work of Peace Child International - 25th Anniversary this year.  I met some activists last week http://www.peacechild.org/  These young people are the agents of change. 
Who do you nominate?

The Hudson Institute, a think-tank in Washington DC, in a new study reports that in 2005 a majority of Overseas Aid from the USA came from foundations, individuals and other private sources and not from the US government.  The $95.2 billion far exceeded the $27.6 billion from the federal government.  $61.7 billion of the $95.2 billion came from foreign born individuals sending money to friends and relatives in their home countries. 
The total from the governments of 22 developed nations at $106.8 billion only just exceeded US private support!  But the report found that the USA ranks third to last among the 22 nations in terms of a percentage of GNP given, although in absolute cash terms it’s first.
A free copy of the Index of Global Philanthropy and an Executive Summary is available at:
http://gpr.hudson.org/files/publications/Index2007ExecutiveSummary.pdf

I have seen very little coverage of RFK Jr the environmentalist’s 6 minutes at LiveEarth in New York.  In the USA there have calls for his impeachment as a traitor (which mirrors his words about US corporations.) Or is it the Inaugural address of another Kennedy?  RFK is the third of the eleven children of Ethel and Robert Kennedy.  It’s uncomfortable to hear these words from a trust fund junkie, but if it resonates for you, listen on.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Heku9oTLysg

I’m presenting the session on American Culture and the Expectations of Philanthropy at the Chapel & York seminar, Fundraising from America  http://www.chapel-york.com/services/seminartemp.html on 26 July in London.
Last Monday, while planning the session, I read an article in the UK MediaGuardian.  I can’t find a link to the article but was headed:  “Charities have come under fire in the press for their increasingly professional tactics.  Today a fundraisers’ conference will discuss ways to increase public confidence in their methods. “ 
“It shocks people to discover that we’re complex professional organisations run by paid staff” Alan Gosschalk, director of fundraising at Shelter the homelessness charity, is reported as planning to say, “it doesn’t tally with …worthy volunteers plugging away at the local jumble sale or mowing the church lawn.”
I have heard the job of a fundraiser in the UK and in the USA compared like this:  “If you ask an American for a million and he can’t afford it he will still be flattered to be asked;  it you ask a Brit and he can’t afford it he will be embarrassed. ”
Americans and Brits both know that part of effective philanthropy is asking for money;  Americans are flattered and Brits are embarrassed at the very thought of it.  It’s a mistake to imagine that Brits are ignorant or plain old fashioned and still believe that charity equals jumble sales.  They know very well what professional fundraisers do, they just don’t want it done to them - if it’s going to be embarrassing.  They much prefer the approach of the Disasters Emergency Committee http://www.dec.org.uk/ that advertises in the media and puts discrete details of how to give money at bank counters.  Or Children in Need on TV when you give over the telephone from the privacy of your living room.  After all, CAF’s Charity Trends reveals that last year the top 500 UK charities raised an average of £23.5 million (US$47 million) every day!  Someone is certainly giving something! 
So UK fundraisers planning to fundraise from America should take the advice I was given last week by a UK politician.  He served in the government of Margaret Thatcher and held several important cabinet posts. While talking about raising money for a charity in his village he said: “You have to ask.”
I have never heard it put more directly, even in America.

Carlos Slim is the richest person in the world, not Bill Gates.  True.  He is several billion dollars ahead of Bill Gates, according to the Guardian http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2117330,00.html#article_continue and about 75 other news sources.   His business interests include Telefonos de Mexico, the biggest fixed line telephone company, and Prodigy the most innovative internet company in Mexico; the biggest mobile phone company America Movil, and a construction company in Latin America; CompUSA, a Texas based consumer electronics retailer; and Grupo Carso, a holding company whose holding include Sears stores. 

When Forbes, in March this year, ranked him as the second richest man, Slim announced he would increase his charitable donations from $4 bn to $10 bn by 2010.  According to today’s Guardian, Slim’s spokesman Arturo Elias Ayup said this week that his boss paid little attention to rich lists: ”As he has said many times he isn’t in a competition.  He is dedicated to working in philanthropy and creating jobs in Latin America.”

I was once asked if I had Bill Gates’ number to which I answered “Yes, of course”.  Now I have Carlos Slim’s number too.  63 000 000 000 (US dollars).

My read of the week:  Today’s Financial Times contains a collection of articles to mark a United Nations conference of 1,000 company leaders in Geneva: http://www.ft.com/reports/philanthropy2007

Articles include how charities are evolving by looking increasingly to business, how business is understanding social responsibility by looking to charities, how social issues are driving business schools, how business is producing intermediary organizations to help nonprofits and philanthropists, and how more philanthropy may not be better.  And there is a ranking of the world’s best NGOs - according to companies http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e78b29d8-294c-11dc-a530-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=c1927432-1f9e-11dc-ac86-000b5df10621.html