The moment for celebration is almost here: After 400 years in the shadows of slavery, 75 years of invisibility and exclusion under US labor law, and 6 years of a hard-fought struggle in the New York State legislature, domestic workers are about to gain the rights, respect, and recognition they deserve!
Tomorrow,Tuesday, August 31 at 11 am, New York Governor David Paterson is scheduled to sign the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights into law. The bill, which Ms. Foundation grantee Domestic Workers United spent years fighting to get passed, will provide basic workplace standards and protections for domestic workers, including overtime pay, paid vacation and sick days, and the guarantee of at least one day of rest per week.
This is truly a historic moment for domestic workers in New York -- and across the country. If you're in New York metro area, you can help celebrate this remarkable win by attending tomorrow's signing, which will take place at the Dwyer Cultural Center, located at 123rd Street between St Nicholas Avenue and Frederick Douglass Boulevard. Doors open at 10:15am; program begins at 11am SHARP. If you plan to attend, please RSVP to dwuinfo@domesticworkersunited.org.
We applaud Domestic Workers United, the National Domestic Workers Alliance (an organization working at the national level to ensure domestic workers' rights that was birthed out of DWU and the US Social Forum,) and all of the other organizations and individuals whose support and hard work made this victory possible. But most of all, we congratulate the domestic workers of New York -- who finally have something to cheer about!
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Findings from the 2010 Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy
Bank of America Merrill Lynch Announces Findings from the 2010 Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy
New Research Finds Wealthy Donors Remain Strongly Committed to Nonprofit Organizations; Reveals Unique Insights Into Donors’ Motivations for Giving and Why They Stop
NEW YORK – Charitable giving by high net worth households to nonprofit organizations accounts for about two-thirds of all individual giving and about half of all charitable giving in the U.S.[1]
Through an ongoing research partnership with the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, which began in 2006, the 2010 Bank of America Merrill Lynch Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy reveals significant shifts as well as consistent trends in the attitudes and giving behaviors of wealthy donors, including which nonprofit sectors they support, how they direct their largest gifts, what motivates them to give and to discontinue support for a nonprofit organization, where and how often they volunteer, and who they turn to for advice about philanthropy. The latest study also examines new areas of research, including how charitable decisions are made within households, investment risk tolerance as it pertains to donors’ philanthropic assets, and how wealthy individuals respond to disaster relief.
This biennial study has become a significant resource for understanding the motives and methods of giving among wealthy Americans and is used to inform the practices of nonprofit organizations and to foster peer learning among donors themselves. The study also provides key insights for those who advise the wealthy on their charitable giving strategies.
This latest study follows much of the same methodology as the 2006 and 2008 studies in order to identify key trends and provide deeper insights. It reflects the responses of more than 800 households randomly surveyed in affluent neighborhoods across the U.S. Households in the sample have an income of greater than $200,000 and/or a net worth of at least $1,000,000, excluding the value of their primary residence. The average wealth of respondents was more than $10 million, and half of all respondents had a net worth between $3 million and $20 million.
Click here to access the full 75-page 2010 study and to view a panel discussion about some of its compelling findings.
Strong Commitment to Nonprofits, Though Giving Levels Decline
According to the study, high net worth households continued to support charitable organizations at levels that were remarkably consistent with those seen in 2005 and 2007, with 98 percent of wealthy households donating to charitable causes in 2009. High net worth households also reported a continued strong commitment to supporting the same organizations or causes year after year (66 percent). Although 35 percent stopped giving to at least one organization in 2009, this was consistent with 2007 results – an indication that donors were no less committed to the organizations they supported during the recent recession than they were before it began. Giving as a percentage of income also remained somewhat steady in 2009 compared to the previous study, with wealthy donors contributing just over 9 percent of their income to charitable causes last year, compared to approximately 11 percent in 2007.
“Wealthy individuals and families continue to be a driving force behind charitable giving in this country, supporting a wide array of organizations and issues,” said Gillian Howell, national private philanthropy executive at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “It was encouraging that these donors remained committed to supporting the causes and communities they feel passionate about, many of which were facing new challenges and complexities brought on by the recent recession.”
While commitment to continuing support for nonprofits remained high, wealthy households appear to be making trade-offs in the dollar amounts that they give to charity, with the overall average gift amounts in this study decreasing by 35 percent from 2007, after adjusting for inflation. Several sectors did see increases between 4 and 21 percent in average amounts given by wealthy donors, including the arts, environment/animal care and international giving.
“Charitable giving follows the overall economy,” said Una Osili, Ph.D., director of research for the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. “When economic conditions improve, charitable giving improves as well.”
Although average giving amounts to health and education declined in 2009, they remain among the top nonprofit sectors supported by wealthy households. Consistent with the two previous studies, between 70 and 85 percent of high net worth households supported health, religion, the arts, education and basic needs. The percentage of households that gave to basic human needs, such as food and shelter, increased from 75 percent in 2005 to 85 percent in 2009.
More than 55 percent of high net worth households gave their largest gift in 2009 to fund general operations at nonprofit organizations. Significantly fewer households made their largest gift to support the growth of an organization (24 percent), for capital campaigns (14 percent) and for the long-term needs of the organization (11 percent) compared to 2007.
“As the economy recovers and donors begin to look beyond short-term needs, nonprofit organizations will need to consider adjusting their messaging to better capture the critical support needed for sustainability and growth,” said Claire Costello, national foundation executive at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “Their challenge will be striking a balance between successfully engaging donors around both long- and short-term needs.”
Volunteerism: Human Capital
Volunteering remains a significant part of the philanthropic efforts of wealthy individuals. Since 2007, high net worth households have been giving more of their time and talent to the organizations and causes they value. Nearly 79 percent of high net worth individuals volunteered in 2009, and the percentage who volunteered more than 200 hours a year rose significantly, from 27 percent in 2007 to 39 percent in 2009. The study also found that the more high net worth individuals volunteered, the more they gave. For example, non-volunteers donated $46,414 on average in 2009, while those who volunteered more than 200 hours donated $75,662 to charity last year.
“This rise in volunteerism may be due to a combination of factors, including a tendency among donors to compensate for financial constraints during a time of recession by committing more of their time, skills and other human capital. Another factor may be that baby boomers have begun to retire or scale back on their working hours, leaving more time for volunteer efforts,” said Howell. “This year’s study demonstrates that presenting donors and their families with meaningful and year-round volunteer opportunities can help nonprofits build stronger connections to their organization, deepen relationships with supporters and potentially establish longer-term commitments.”
Motivations of Wealthy Donors: Why They Give and Why They Stop
When asked about their charitable behavior, high net worth households reported that their top motivations for giving were:
• Being moved by how their gift can make a difference (72 percent).
• Feeling financially secure (71 percent).
• Giving to an organization that will use their donation efficiently (71 percent).
• Supporting the same causes or organizations annually (66 percent).
“These top responses around impact, efficiency and financial security indicate that during these difficult financial times, when community needs are more acute, donors are particularly concerned about whether their contributions are being used effectively. They want to invest their charitable assets wisely in order to get the most bang for their philanthropic buck,” said Costello.
Why Wealthy Donors Stopped Giving
In 2009, 35 percent of households stopped giving to at least one organization, and 27 percent stopped giving to at least two organizations that they previously supported. The top four reasons cited for why donors stopped giving to a particular charity included:
• Too frequent solicitation/organization asked for inappropriate amount (59 percent).
• Decided to support other causes (34 percent).
• Household circumstances changed (e.g., financial, relocation, employment) (29 percent).
• Organization changed leadership or activities (29 percent).
“Nonprofit organizations may have asked for too much at a time when donors were more constrained due to the downturn. The message for nonprofits is that they should be aware of donors’ circumstances. Even if donors haven’t been as affected by the downturn, increased economic and financial uncertainty may be leading them to allocate their charitable dollars differently,” said Osili.
Additional Giving Influences
Tax Considerations
In a shift from the previous studies, wealthy households reported being more sensitive to the effect of tax policy on their giving. About two-thirds (67 percent) of wealthy households would somewhat or dramatically decrease their charitable contributions if they received zero income tax deductions for their donations; 47 percent responded this way in 2007. If the estate tax were repealed, 43 percent of wealthy households would somewhat or dramatically increase the amount they leave to charity in an estate plan, compared to 36 percent in 2007.
Disaster Relief
An area in which wealthy households do not make trade-offs is when giving to disaster relief, such as the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, Hurricane Katrina, tsunamis, or other events. This new area of research found that the majority of wealthy households (83 percent) sometimes or usually make a donation in response to disasters. When households made a donation, more than 92 percent gave to disaster relief in addition to their regular charitable giving.
Attracting and Retaining Donors
A combined 95 percent of wealthy households have some or a great deal of confidence in nonprofit organizations’ ability to solve societal or global problems. In a continuing trend from the previous study, donors also have high expectations of charitable organizations, listing the following factors among those most important when determining which to support:
• Demonstrate sound business and operational practices (87 percent).
• Acknowledge contributions, including sending receipts (85 percent).
• Spend an appropriate amount on overhead (80 percent).
• Do not distribute personal information (80 percent).
Household Decision-Making and Transmission of Philanthropic Values
For the first time, this study examined how charitable decisions within high net worth households are made. The findings suggest that among wealthy couples who make charitable donations (those who are married and/or living with a partner), both giving partners are likely to be involved in decision-making:
• 41 percent confer with their partner or spouse and then make joint decisions about charitable giving.
• 26 percent confer but then usually one person ultimately makes the charitable giving decisions for the household.
• 16 percent reported that giving decisions were made by a single decision maker without conferring with anyone else.
• 15 percent of couples report that each partner typically makes independent decisions about how to allocate their giving.
Raising Philanthropic Children
The latest study once again looked at the transmission of philanthropic values to children or other younger relatives. In this study, the children of wealthy households are generally adults with an average age of 31 years old. The vast majority (85 percent) of households instruct their children and/or younger relatives about philanthropy. Respondents also noted that younger individuals learn about the value of giving from religious institutions (45 percent), nonprofits (21 percent) and through their own personal efforts (19 percent).
Wealthy households reported a variety of family traditions as a part of their annual charitable giving. In fact, more than 70 percent of wealthy families have family traditions in which they involve their children and/or younger relatives in charitable giving, such as making gifts to honor the memory of an individual (35 percent), making gifts to organizations they are involved with (34 percent), having family discussions about giving throughout the year (27 percent), volunteering as a family (18 percent) and making family decisions about charitable giving during the holidays (10 percent).
Charitable Vehicles, Investing and Advisors
More than 16 percent of wealthy households gave to giving vehicles such as private foundations, donor-advised funds and charitable trusts in 2009, and the average giving amount to these vehicles increased by 21 percent, from $62,680 in 2007 to $75,867 in 2009.
In another new area of research, the latest study examined high net worth households’ levels of risk tolerance among both their personal and philanthropic investments (e.g., private foundations, donor-advised funds and charitable trusts). The results show that, while 35 percent of wealthy households cited a willingness to tolerate above-average or substantial risk in their personal investments, only 23 percent reported these high levels of risk tolerance when it comes to their philanthropic investments. Furthermore, while only 10 percent of households reported they were not willing to take any risk in their personal investing, one quarter (26 percent) cite being completely risk averse with their philanthropic investments.
“These findings indicate that donors understand that their philanthropic assets are in fact not their own, but rather are to be used for the common good. In other words, we believe they take less risk with these assets than they do with their personal investments because they understand that their philanthropic capital ought to be invested with appropriate levels of risk given that it is intended for public benefit,” said Costello.
Finally, this year’s study continued to examine trends in charitable advice sought by wealthy donors. Consistent with trends observed between the 2006 and 2008 studies, the 2010 study witnessed notable increases in donors’ use of accountants (68 percent) and financial/wealth advisors (39 percent) to help them make charitable giving decisions. High net worth households also consulted with nonprofit personnel (24 percent) in their charitable decisions around philanthropic mission definition and creation. More than 90 percent of wealthy households initiated the discussions with their advisor, and 85 percent were satisfied with the advice given.
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University is a leading academic center dedicated to increasing the understanding of philanthropy and improving its practice worldwide through research, teaching, training and public affairs programs in philanthropy, fundraising, and management of nonprofit organizations. A part of the Indiana University School of Liberal Arts at IUPUI, the Center operates programs on the IUPUI and IU Bloomington campuses. For more information, visit www.philanthropy.iupui.edu.
Institutional Investment and Philanthropic Solutions
Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s Institutional Investments and Philanthropic Solutions (II&PS) business is a specialized practice within the Global Wealth and Investment Management (GWIM) division. The practice serves more than 22,000 nonprofit organizations, philanthropic families and individuals through the objective delivery of integrated institutional investment, philanthropic and advisory solutions.
Bank of America
Bank of America is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations with a full range of banking, investing, asset management and other financial and risk management products and services. The company provides unmatched convenience in the United States, serving approximately 57 million consumer and small business relationships with approximately 5,900 retail banking offices and approximately 18,000 ATMs and award-winning online banking with 29 million active users. Bank of America is among the world's leading wealth management companies and is a global leader in corporate and investment banking and trading across a broad range of asset classes, serving corporations, governments, institutions and individuals around the world. Bank of America offers industry-leading support to approximately 4 million small business owners through a suite of innovative, easy-to-use online products and services. The company serves clients through operations in more than 40 countries. Bank of America Corporation stock (NYSE: BAC) is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
1 Analysis by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University of charitable giving using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (2004), IRS tax deductions (2004), and Giving USA Foundation (2004) information for households with income of $200,000 or more. Latest years available.
New Research Finds Wealthy Donors Remain Strongly Committed to Nonprofit Organizations; Reveals Unique Insights Into Donors’ Motivations for Giving and Why They Stop
NEW YORK – Charitable giving by high net worth households to nonprofit organizations accounts for about two-thirds of all individual giving and about half of all charitable giving in the U.S.[1]
Through an ongoing research partnership with the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, which began in 2006, the 2010 Bank of America Merrill Lynch Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy reveals significant shifts as well as consistent trends in the attitudes and giving behaviors of wealthy donors, including which nonprofit sectors they support, how they direct their largest gifts, what motivates them to give and to discontinue support for a nonprofit organization, where and how often they volunteer, and who they turn to for advice about philanthropy. The latest study also examines new areas of research, including how charitable decisions are made within households, investment risk tolerance as it pertains to donors’ philanthropic assets, and how wealthy individuals respond to disaster relief.
This biennial study has become a significant resource for understanding the motives and methods of giving among wealthy Americans and is used to inform the practices of nonprofit organizations and to foster peer learning among donors themselves. The study also provides key insights for those who advise the wealthy on their charitable giving strategies.
This latest study follows much of the same methodology as the 2006 and 2008 studies in order to identify key trends and provide deeper insights. It reflects the responses of more than 800 households randomly surveyed in affluent neighborhoods across the U.S. Households in the sample have an income of greater than $200,000 and/or a net worth of at least $1,000,000, excluding the value of their primary residence. The average wealth of respondents was more than $10 million, and half of all respondents had a net worth between $3 million and $20 million.
Click here to access the full 75-page 2010 study and to view a panel discussion about some of its compelling findings.
Strong Commitment to Nonprofits, Though Giving Levels Decline
According to the study, high net worth households continued to support charitable organizations at levels that were remarkably consistent with those seen in 2005 and 2007, with 98 percent of wealthy households donating to charitable causes in 2009. High net worth households also reported a continued strong commitment to supporting the same organizations or causes year after year (66 percent). Although 35 percent stopped giving to at least one organization in 2009, this was consistent with 2007 results – an indication that donors were no less committed to the organizations they supported during the recent recession than they were before it began. Giving as a percentage of income also remained somewhat steady in 2009 compared to the previous study, with wealthy donors contributing just over 9 percent of their income to charitable causes last year, compared to approximately 11 percent in 2007.
“Wealthy individuals and families continue to be a driving force behind charitable giving in this country, supporting a wide array of organizations and issues,” said Gillian Howell, national private philanthropy executive at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “It was encouraging that these donors remained committed to supporting the causes and communities they feel passionate about, many of which were facing new challenges and complexities brought on by the recent recession.”
While commitment to continuing support for nonprofits remained high, wealthy households appear to be making trade-offs in the dollar amounts that they give to charity, with the overall average gift amounts in this study decreasing by 35 percent from 2007, after adjusting for inflation. Several sectors did see increases between 4 and 21 percent in average amounts given by wealthy donors, including the arts, environment/animal care and international giving.
“Charitable giving follows the overall economy,” said Una Osili, Ph.D., director of research for the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. “When economic conditions improve, charitable giving improves as well.”
Although average giving amounts to health and education declined in 2009, they remain among the top nonprofit sectors supported by wealthy households. Consistent with the two previous studies, between 70 and 85 percent of high net worth households supported health, religion, the arts, education and basic needs. The percentage of households that gave to basic human needs, such as food and shelter, increased from 75 percent in 2005 to 85 percent in 2009.
More than 55 percent of high net worth households gave their largest gift in 2009 to fund general operations at nonprofit organizations. Significantly fewer households made their largest gift to support the growth of an organization (24 percent), for capital campaigns (14 percent) and for the long-term needs of the organization (11 percent) compared to 2007.
“As the economy recovers and donors begin to look beyond short-term needs, nonprofit organizations will need to consider adjusting their messaging to better capture the critical support needed for sustainability and growth,” said Claire Costello, national foundation executive at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “Their challenge will be striking a balance between successfully engaging donors around both long- and short-term needs.”
Volunteerism: Human Capital
Volunteering remains a significant part of the philanthropic efforts of wealthy individuals. Since 2007, high net worth households have been giving more of their time and talent to the organizations and causes they value. Nearly 79 percent of high net worth individuals volunteered in 2009, and the percentage who volunteered more than 200 hours a year rose significantly, from 27 percent in 2007 to 39 percent in 2009. The study also found that the more high net worth individuals volunteered, the more they gave. For example, non-volunteers donated $46,414 on average in 2009, while those who volunteered more than 200 hours donated $75,662 to charity last year.
“This rise in volunteerism may be due to a combination of factors, including a tendency among donors to compensate for financial constraints during a time of recession by committing more of their time, skills and other human capital. Another factor may be that baby boomers have begun to retire or scale back on their working hours, leaving more time for volunteer efforts,” said Howell. “This year’s study demonstrates that presenting donors and their families with meaningful and year-round volunteer opportunities can help nonprofits build stronger connections to their organization, deepen relationships with supporters and potentially establish longer-term commitments.”
Motivations of Wealthy Donors: Why They Give and Why They Stop
When asked about their charitable behavior, high net worth households reported that their top motivations for giving were:
• Being moved by how their gift can make a difference (72 percent).
• Feeling financially secure (71 percent).
• Giving to an organization that will use their donation efficiently (71 percent).
• Supporting the same causes or organizations annually (66 percent).
“These top responses around impact, efficiency and financial security indicate that during these difficult financial times, when community needs are more acute, donors are particularly concerned about whether their contributions are being used effectively. They want to invest their charitable assets wisely in order to get the most bang for their philanthropic buck,” said Costello.
Why Wealthy Donors Stopped Giving
In 2009, 35 percent of households stopped giving to at least one organization, and 27 percent stopped giving to at least two organizations that they previously supported. The top four reasons cited for why donors stopped giving to a particular charity included:
• Too frequent solicitation/organization asked for inappropriate amount (59 percent).
• Decided to support other causes (34 percent).
• Household circumstances changed (e.g., financial, relocation, employment) (29 percent).
• Organization changed leadership or activities (29 percent).
“Nonprofit organizations may have asked for too much at a time when donors were more constrained due to the downturn. The message for nonprofits is that they should be aware of donors’ circumstances. Even if donors haven’t been as affected by the downturn, increased economic and financial uncertainty may be leading them to allocate their charitable dollars differently,” said Osili.
Additional Giving Influences
Tax Considerations
In a shift from the previous studies, wealthy households reported being more sensitive to the effect of tax policy on their giving. About two-thirds (67 percent) of wealthy households would somewhat or dramatically decrease their charitable contributions if they received zero income tax deductions for their donations; 47 percent responded this way in 2007. If the estate tax were repealed, 43 percent of wealthy households would somewhat or dramatically increase the amount they leave to charity in an estate plan, compared to 36 percent in 2007.
Disaster Relief
An area in which wealthy households do not make trade-offs is when giving to disaster relief, such as the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, Hurricane Katrina, tsunamis, or other events. This new area of research found that the majority of wealthy households (83 percent) sometimes or usually make a donation in response to disasters. When households made a donation, more than 92 percent gave to disaster relief in addition to their regular charitable giving.
Attracting and Retaining Donors
A combined 95 percent of wealthy households have some or a great deal of confidence in nonprofit organizations’ ability to solve societal or global problems. In a continuing trend from the previous study, donors also have high expectations of charitable organizations, listing the following factors among those most important when determining which to support:
• Demonstrate sound business and operational practices (87 percent).
• Acknowledge contributions, including sending receipts (85 percent).
• Spend an appropriate amount on overhead (80 percent).
• Do not distribute personal information (80 percent).
Household Decision-Making and Transmission of Philanthropic Values
For the first time, this study examined how charitable decisions within high net worth households are made. The findings suggest that among wealthy couples who make charitable donations (those who are married and/or living with a partner), both giving partners are likely to be involved in decision-making:
• 41 percent confer with their partner or spouse and then make joint decisions about charitable giving.
• 26 percent confer but then usually one person ultimately makes the charitable giving decisions for the household.
• 16 percent reported that giving decisions were made by a single decision maker without conferring with anyone else.
• 15 percent of couples report that each partner typically makes independent decisions about how to allocate their giving.
Raising Philanthropic Children
The latest study once again looked at the transmission of philanthropic values to children or other younger relatives. In this study, the children of wealthy households are generally adults with an average age of 31 years old. The vast majority (85 percent) of households instruct their children and/or younger relatives about philanthropy. Respondents also noted that younger individuals learn about the value of giving from religious institutions (45 percent), nonprofits (21 percent) and through their own personal efforts (19 percent).
Wealthy households reported a variety of family traditions as a part of their annual charitable giving. In fact, more than 70 percent of wealthy families have family traditions in which they involve their children and/or younger relatives in charitable giving, such as making gifts to honor the memory of an individual (35 percent), making gifts to organizations they are involved with (34 percent), having family discussions about giving throughout the year (27 percent), volunteering as a family (18 percent) and making family decisions about charitable giving during the holidays (10 percent).
Charitable Vehicles, Investing and Advisors
More than 16 percent of wealthy households gave to giving vehicles such as private foundations, donor-advised funds and charitable trusts in 2009, and the average giving amount to these vehicles increased by 21 percent, from $62,680 in 2007 to $75,867 in 2009.
In another new area of research, the latest study examined high net worth households’ levels of risk tolerance among both their personal and philanthropic investments (e.g., private foundations, donor-advised funds and charitable trusts). The results show that, while 35 percent of wealthy households cited a willingness to tolerate above-average or substantial risk in their personal investments, only 23 percent reported these high levels of risk tolerance when it comes to their philanthropic investments. Furthermore, while only 10 percent of households reported they were not willing to take any risk in their personal investing, one quarter (26 percent) cite being completely risk averse with their philanthropic investments.
“These findings indicate that donors understand that their philanthropic assets are in fact not their own, but rather are to be used for the common good. In other words, we believe they take less risk with these assets than they do with their personal investments because they understand that their philanthropic capital ought to be invested with appropriate levels of risk given that it is intended for public benefit,” said Costello.
Finally, this year’s study continued to examine trends in charitable advice sought by wealthy donors. Consistent with trends observed between the 2006 and 2008 studies, the 2010 study witnessed notable increases in donors’ use of accountants (68 percent) and financial/wealth advisors (39 percent) to help them make charitable giving decisions. High net worth households also consulted with nonprofit personnel (24 percent) in their charitable decisions around philanthropic mission definition and creation. More than 90 percent of wealthy households initiated the discussions with their advisor, and 85 percent were satisfied with the advice given.
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University is a leading academic center dedicated to increasing the understanding of philanthropy and improving its practice worldwide through research, teaching, training and public affairs programs in philanthropy, fundraising, and management of nonprofit organizations. A part of the Indiana University School of Liberal Arts at IUPUI, the Center operates programs on the IUPUI and IU Bloomington campuses. For more information, visit www.philanthropy.iupui.edu.
Institutional Investment and Philanthropic Solutions
Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s Institutional Investments and Philanthropic Solutions (II&PS) business is a specialized practice within the Global Wealth and Investment Management (GWIM) division. The practice serves more than 22,000 nonprofit organizations, philanthropic families and individuals through the objective delivery of integrated institutional investment, philanthropic and advisory solutions.
Bank of America
Bank of America is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations with a full range of banking, investing, asset management and other financial and risk management products and services. The company provides unmatched convenience in the United States, serving approximately 57 million consumer and small business relationships with approximately 5,900 retail banking offices and approximately 18,000 ATMs and award-winning online banking with 29 million active users. Bank of America is among the world's leading wealth management companies and is a global leader in corporate and investment banking and trading across a broad range of asset classes, serving corporations, governments, institutions and individuals around the world. Bank of America offers industry-leading support to approximately 4 million small business owners through a suite of innovative, easy-to-use online products and services. The company serves clients through operations in more than 40 countries. Bank of America Corporation stock (NYSE: BAC) is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
1 Analysis by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University of charitable giving using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (2004), IRS tax deductions (2004), and Giving USA Foundation (2004) information for households with income of $200,000 or more. Latest years available.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
No Place To Call Home For Many Female Veterans
Stella Johnson for NPR
Stella Johnson for NPR Cherish Cornish, 29, joined the Army when she was 20 years old. When she was discharged, she was 23 and didn't know how to live on her own — so she has struggled with homelessness. But since June, she has lived in a temporary housing facility run by Father Bill's & MainSpring, a private nonprofit group in Brockton, Mass.
Over the past decade, the number of female veterans who have become homeless has nearly doubled to roughly 6,500, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Most of them are younger than 35.
One of them is Cherish Cornish. Since June, the 29-year-old has lived on the fifth floor of a temporary housing facility run by Father Bill's & MainSpring, a private nonprofit group in Brockton, Mass. Cornish lives in one of five rooms reserved for homeless female veterans. She's struggling to make a life for herself after the military.
I come out and I'm 23, and so I just kind of came of age in the military. I wind up on my own again in an apartment. It's the first time I've had to pay rent since I was a teenager.
"When I joined the Army, I was barely 20 years old," Cornish says with a Southern accent, a legacy of years growing up in Texas. "I come out, and I'm 23, and so I just kind of came of age in the military. I wind up on my own again in an apartment. It's the first time I've had to pay rent since I was a teenager. It's the first time I had to pay a light bill — pretty much ever — and all these responsibilities and budgeting and stuff that I'd really never had to deal with in the military."
There are other complications. Cornish suffers from PTSD. It took the VA several years to diagnose her. Cornish believes her trauma stems from her service in Iraq. She was a transmission specialist working at isolated outposts monitoring and intercepting radio communications. Still, she thinks she lucked out, because often she'd just miss getting physically hurt.
"I was on a checkpoint doing some guard duty one day, and as soon as we left, a sniper attacked and we heard the gunfires," she says. "We were driving away and looked back and saw them engaged in actual combat. And we'd just left there."
Amy Street, a psychologist for the National Center for PTSD at Boston's VA health care system, says that women's roles in the military are different these days.
"These wars are unique in terms of women's roles — both in terms of the number of women who are serving, but also in terms of the types of duties and the types of responsibilities that they have in the war zone," she says. "And I'm not sure that our country's perception of women as warriors has caught up with what's happening on the ground."
There are misperceptions about what's happening when women soldiers return home. Women veterans are running into all sorts of obstacles, including homelessness. But many of these women aren't turning to the VA for help. Cornish says she tried, but clinics were too far away. And there were other problems.
Stella Johnson for NPR Cornish points to patches on her jacket — she was born in Missouri, she did her basic Army training in South Carolina, and she completed her advanced individual training in Georgia.
"The groups that they did have around the area were almost all men," Cornish says. "And most of them did not believe that women were combat veterans. Most of them didn't believe women were veterans period — that we don't serve that much of a purpose in the military. And definitely in a combat zone. They just assumed that we were paper pushers — that we were far behind the lines. And that's not true."
The VA says it's working to improve its care for women. Still, they're not there yet, which is why women like Cornish go to nonprofits like Father Bill's & MainSpring.
"To have an organization like ours — that isn't necessarily associated with the military — it might be a little bit more accessible [for female veterans]," says April Connolly, a social worker at that program. "And I think that's the idea for the VA — to be involved with us, to really start reaching out to private nonprofits so that they're getting their services available, which is amazing to the people who have served."
So for now, Cornish has found a place that she can call home.
Stella Johnson for NPR Cherish Cornish, 29, joined the Army when she was 20 years old. When she was discharged, she was 23 and didn't know how to live on her own — so she has struggled with homelessness. But since June, she has lived in a temporary housing facility run by Father Bill's & MainSpring, a private nonprofit group in Brockton, Mass.
Over the past decade, the number of female veterans who have become homeless has nearly doubled to roughly 6,500, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Most of them are younger than 35.
One of them is Cherish Cornish. Since June, the 29-year-old has lived on the fifth floor of a temporary housing facility run by Father Bill's & MainSpring, a private nonprofit group in Brockton, Mass. Cornish lives in one of five rooms reserved for homeless female veterans. She's struggling to make a life for herself after the military.
I come out and I'm 23, and so I just kind of came of age in the military. I wind up on my own again in an apartment. It's the first time I've had to pay rent since I was a teenager.
"When I joined the Army, I was barely 20 years old," Cornish says with a Southern accent, a legacy of years growing up in Texas. "I come out, and I'm 23, and so I just kind of came of age in the military. I wind up on my own again in an apartment. It's the first time I've had to pay rent since I was a teenager. It's the first time I had to pay a light bill — pretty much ever — and all these responsibilities and budgeting and stuff that I'd really never had to deal with in the military."
There are other complications. Cornish suffers from PTSD. It took the VA several years to diagnose her. Cornish believes her trauma stems from her service in Iraq. She was a transmission specialist working at isolated outposts monitoring and intercepting radio communications. Still, she thinks she lucked out, because often she'd just miss getting physically hurt.
"I was on a checkpoint doing some guard duty one day, and as soon as we left, a sniper attacked and we heard the gunfires," she says. "We were driving away and looked back and saw them engaged in actual combat. And we'd just left there."
Amy Street, a psychologist for the National Center for PTSD at Boston's VA health care system, says that women's roles in the military are different these days.
"These wars are unique in terms of women's roles — both in terms of the number of women who are serving, but also in terms of the types of duties and the types of responsibilities that they have in the war zone," she says. "And I'm not sure that our country's perception of women as warriors has caught up with what's happening on the ground."
There are misperceptions about what's happening when women soldiers return home. Women veterans are running into all sorts of obstacles, including homelessness. But many of these women aren't turning to the VA for help. Cornish says she tried, but clinics were too far away. And there were other problems.
Stella Johnson for NPR Cornish points to patches on her jacket — she was born in Missouri, she did her basic Army training in South Carolina, and she completed her advanced individual training in Georgia.
"The groups that they did have around the area were almost all men," Cornish says. "And most of them did not believe that women were combat veterans. Most of them didn't believe women were veterans period — that we don't serve that much of a purpose in the military. And definitely in a combat zone. They just assumed that we were paper pushers — that we were far behind the lines. And that's not true."
The VA says it's working to improve its care for women. Still, they're not there yet, which is why women like Cornish go to nonprofits like Father Bill's & MainSpring.
"To have an organization like ours — that isn't necessarily associated with the military — it might be a little bit more accessible [for female veterans]," says April Connolly, a social worker at that program. "And I think that's the idea for the VA — to be involved with us, to really start reaching out to private nonprofits so that they're getting their services available, which is amazing to the people who have served."
So for now, Cornish has found a place that she can call home.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Despite GOP Wins, Hill May See Fewer Women
Despite GOP Wins, Hill May See Fewer Women
by Carrie Kahn
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131073867
November 5, 2010 There are still a few outstanding races involving women yet to be decided, but when the final count is tallied, this year's election will probably be the first time in 30 years that the number of women serving in Congress declines.
It started as a banner year for female candidates. More of them ran in party primaries than ever before, especially Republican women, who set a new record. Many of the winners had the backing of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who coined a new nickname for the like-minded conservative moms: Mama Grizzlies.
Women In Congress, 1987-2013
There has been a steady increase in the number of women in Congress since 1916, when Rep. Jeannette Rankin (R-MT) became the first female member. A record number of female candidates ran in the 2010 primaries for both the Senate and House, mainly propelled by a significant increase in Republican candidates. As of 5 p.m. ET on Nov. 4, The Associated Press had determined that six congressional races in Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, New York and Washington were still too close to call. Depending on the results, the new 112th Congress could either continue the steady increase of women in Congress or witness the first drop in decades.
Source: Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers U.
Credit: Stephanie d'Otreppe
Some had big victories Tuesday night: Republican Susanna Martinez took the state's top race in New Mexico, making her the first Latina governor in the nation. Republican Nikki Haley not only became South Carolina's first female governor, but the first Indian-American woman to serve as a state's chief executive. The Senate will have a new Republican woman from New Hampshire, Kelly Ayote, and the House will get eight new GOP females — maybe more after all the tallying is done.
Heavy Losses
But Republican women chalked up big losses, too — especially in California where two wealthy businesswomen, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, lost to Democrats. Fiorina said she had no regrets.
"I'm not going to engage in a game of coulda, woulda, shoulda," she said. "I'm proud of every moment of this campaign."
Republican losses paled compared with those suffered by Democrats. Swept up in the conservative wave, Democratic women took big hits. Nine of them were booted in the House and one in the Senate.
Since most women in Congress are Democrats, the party's problem this week became theirs. That means there will likely be fewer women in Congress for the first time since the 1970s, said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.
"This year is the first time that it has gone down, it's gone down a little bit, but going down or staying the same if you care about women's participation in politics," she said.
Women make up a mere 17 percent of Congress.
Walsh says given the Republicans' success this week, it's unfortunate that the GOP didn't have more female candidates running.
'A Corrective Moment'
Marjorie Dannenfelser agrees. She heads the Susan B. Anthony List, a political action committee that supports female candidates who oppose abortion rights.
Dannenfelser says the GOP may be short on women, but that won't last.
"I would describe this 2010 election cycle as a corrective moment for the women's movement, and I foresee women continuing to run in larger and larger numbers, but they are going to be a different type of women," she said. "They are going to look a lot more like Kelly Ayote and less like [U.S. Sen.] Barbara Boxer."
The Republican Party will have to work a lot harder for that to happen, said Kathleen Dolan, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin.
"The Republican Party structure has never been as open or as inclusive to women as have the Democrats, and Republican primary voters are less disposed to vote for women candidates," Dolan said.
But don't tell that to Palin. On Thursday, she released a victory video filled with shots of the winners she endorsed — with a closing shot of a real Mama Grizzly standing tall.
by Carrie Kahn
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131073867
November 5, 2010 There are still a few outstanding races involving women yet to be decided, but when the final count is tallied, this year's election will probably be the first time in 30 years that the number of women serving in Congress declines.
It started as a banner year for female candidates. More of them ran in party primaries than ever before, especially Republican women, who set a new record. Many of the winners had the backing of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who coined a new nickname for the like-minded conservative moms: Mama Grizzlies.
Women In Congress, 1987-2013
There has been a steady increase in the number of women in Congress since 1916, when Rep. Jeannette Rankin (R-MT) became the first female member. A record number of female candidates ran in the 2010 primaries for both the Senate and House, mainly propelled by a significant increase in Republican candidates. As of 5 p.m. ET on Nov. 4, The Associated Press had determined that six congressional races in Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, New York and Washington were still too close to call. Depending on the results, the new 112th Congress could either continue the steady increase of women in Congress or witness the first drop in decades.
Source: Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers U.
Credit: Stephanie d'Otreppe
Some had big victories Tuesday night: Republican Susanna Martinez took the state's top race in New Mexico, making her the first Latina governor in the nation. Republican Nikki Haley not only became South Carolina's first female governor, but the first Indian-American woman to serve as a state's chief executive. The Senate will have a new Republican woman from New Hampshire, Kelly Ayote, and the House will get eight new GOP females — maybe more after all the tallying is done.
Heavy Losses
But Republican women chalked up big losses, too — especially in California where two wealthy businesswomen, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, lost to Democrats. Fiorina said she had no regrets.
"I'm not going to engage in a game of coulda, woulda, shoulda," she said. "I'm proud of every moment of this campaign."
Republican losses paled compared with those suffered by Democrats. Swept up in the conservative wave, Democratic women took big hits. Nine of them were booted in the House and one in the Senate.
Since most women in Congress are Democrats, the party's problem this week became theirs. That means there will likely be fewer women in Congress for the first time since the 1970s, said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.
"This year is the first time that it has gone down, it's gone down a little bit, but going down or staying the same if you care about women's participation in politics," she said.
Women make up a mere 17 percent of Congress.
Walsh says given the Republicans' success this week, it's unfortunate that the GOP didn't have more female candidates running.
'A Corrective Moment'
Marjorie Dannenfelser agrees. She heads the Susan B. Anthony List, a political action committee that supports female candidates who oppose abortion rights.
Dannenfelser says the GOP may be short on women, but that won't last.
"I would describe this 2010 election cycle as a corrective moment for the women's movement, and I foresee women continuing to run in larger and larger numbers, but they are going to be a different type of women," she said. "They are going to look a lot more like Kelly Ayote and less like [U.S. Sen.] Barbara Boxer."
The Republican Party will have to work a lot harder for that to happen, said Kathleen Dolan, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin.
"The Republican Party structure has never been as open or as inclusive to women as have the Democrats, and Republican primary voters are less disposed to vote for women candidates," Dolan said.
But don't tell that to Palin. On Thursday, she released a victory video filled with shots of the winners she endorsed — with a closing shot of a real Mama Grizzly standing tall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)