David W. Brown is Director of Planned Givingat Oglethorpe University, a liberal arts col-lege in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. He is also asenior consultant with Alexander Haas Martin 7Partners, Inxc, a full-service fundraising consult-ing firm also based in Atlanta. He was Presidentof the Georgia Planned Giving Council in 2003,and a member of the Research Committee ofthe National Committee on Planned Giving. Hispaper, ‘NCPG, CASE, and the Present Value ofTestamentary Commitments: Analysis, Conclu-sions and Recommendations’, was published inthe October 2002 issue of CASE InternationalJournal of Educational Advancement.

ABSTRACT

The transformation of fundraising from an‘emerging profession’ to a ‘true profession’ iscontingent on the development of ‘a formalbody of knowledge based on theory and re-search’. To advance that goal, this paperreviews several research studies and makesrecommendations for practice by fundraisingprofessionals. The paper identifies indicators ofphilanthropic tendencies in very wealthy in-dividuals and a research basis for donor cul-tivation activities. It also looks at givingby bequest, charitable remainder trust andcharitable gift annuities and recommends themarketing segments and channels best suited toeach as defined by research.

INTRODUCTIONThe transformation of fundraising from an‘emerging profession’ to a ‘true profes-

sion’ like law or medicine is dependenton the development of ‘a formal bodyof knowledge based on theory and re-search’.1

In the 1980s and 1990s, commentatorscriticised fundraising’s body of knowledgeas consisting ‘primarily of intuitivelybased, untested principles generated bypractitioners[,] . . . a body of lore andexperience but [with] limited theoreticalknowledge’.2 In recent years, however,data have been gathered and analysed thatcan provide guidance to planned givingpractitioners, especially in the area ofmarketing.

This paper reviews selected eth-nographic and survey research on factorsinfluencing donor motivation and choiceof planned giving vehicles. Conclusions aredrawn and recommendations are maderegarding prospect identification andcultivation and the application of market-ing segmentation and channels to plannedgiving. An emerging trend towards‘hybrid’ gifts is reported. Recommenda-tions for further research are also included.The aim is to advance the professionalismof planned giving practitioners bysynthesising current research and theory.

DONOR MOTIVATIONRegarding donor motivation, it appearsthat Fitzgerald was right but so wasHemingway. ‘Let me tell you about thevery rich’, a character in a short story byF. Scott Fitzgerald famously opined. ‘They

What research tells us aboutplanned giving

David W. BrownOglethorpe University, 4484 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30319, USA;Tel: �1 404 364 8454; Fax: �1 404 364 8500; e-mail: dbrown@oglethorpe.edu

Received (in revised form): 15th July, 2003

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing Volume 9 Number 1

Page 86

International Journal of Nonprofitand Voluntary Sector Marketing,Vol. 9 No. 1, 2004, pp. 86–95.�Henry Stewart Publications,1479–103X

listen for this language from high capacityprospects and teach them how they canrequite this need through the cause thepractitioner represents. Thomas’ casestudy describes one practitioner’s epiphanyon this concept.6

‘Making a difference’, may not bea monolithic concept. Based on eth-nographic interviews of 218 major donorsidentified by networking with 12 profes-sional service firms (private bankingdivisions of major investment houses andmajor law firms), Prince et al.7 identifiedseven philanthropic styles. These arethe Communitarian, the Devout, theInvestor, the Socialite, the Repayer,the Altruistic and the Dynast. Thoughthese styles may have overlapping values,each represents a distinct approach tophilanthropy. The Communitarian, theDevout and the Socialite, for example, seethe nonprofit sector as an alternative togovernment, but each has a differentperspective on the issue.8 Understandingthe needs of each style — and thevocabulary that expresses the needs —will help planned giving practitionersdefine approaches specific to each style.Indeed, Prince and File suggest a richerrange of word clusters than are describedby Schervish and his associates.8 Theparadigm of the former represents apluralism of motivations. The Com-munitarian gives because it makes goodsense to support the local community;the Devout contributes because it is areligious act; and the Socialite givesbecause he or she is charitable at heart andhappens to have money.

Motivation means nothing withoutengagement with a charity. Engagementcomes through recruitment and cultiva-tion. Research indicates that cultivationworks and may work more profoundlythan previously believed. This conclusioncomes from a reading of research bySchervish and Havens. From the intensive

are different from you and me.’ To which,an Ernest Hemingway character replied,‘Yes, they have more money’.3 Moremoney does give the very wealthy anadvantage. This advantage is not limitedto material comfort but extends to therange of actions that great wealth affordsand can be reflected in their approach tophilanthropy. Schervish characterises thisdifference as ‘hyperagency’, a concept thatappears to have congruence with the needfor self-actualisation in Maslow’s hierarchyof needs.4

Schervish wrote:

‘Hyperagency refers to the enhancedcapacity of wealthy individuals to estab-lish or control substantially the condi-tions under which they and others live. . . As hyperagents, the wealthy —when they choose to do so — can founda broad array of the field of possibilitieswith which they live and work.’5 (Em-phasis in the original.)

Schervish’s findings are based on theBoston College Social Welfare Re-search Institute’s ‘Study on Wealth andPhilanthropy’. A multiyear researchproject published in 1988, the studyconducted intensive interviews with 130persons across the USA who earned orinherited wealth of $1m or more.Schervish concludes that the very wealthyare ‘producers’ (as contrasted with‘supporters’) of philanthropic outcomes.Development officers and gift plannersknow these hyperagents or producers asmakers of ‘transforming gifts’ or ‘mega-gifts’. But not every hyperagent has thedesire to become a philanthropist. Howcan gift planners tell if they are workingwith a ‘producer’? Schervish’s interviewswith the very wealthy indicate there areclues in the language they use: they speakof ‘making a difference’ in the lives ofothers.6 It is the job of the practitioner to

Brown

Page 87

interviews cited above, the researchersidentified five clusters of independentvariables that ‘induce philanthropic com-mitment’ (ie giving and volunteering).They then assessed the significance of thevariables individually and jointly usingdata from ‘the national ‘‘Survey of Givingand Volunteering in the United States’’data collected in 1992 by the GallupOrganization for Independent Sector’.9

The statistical methodology is advanced,but the study reduces to two statisticallysignificant clusters of independent vari-ables: ‘communities of participation’ and‘invitation to participation’. The lattercluster affirms an article of faith infundraising: people get involved becausethey are invited (asked) to volunteer(recruited) or give (solicited).

The first cluster of variables,‘[c]ommunities of participation’, writeSchervish and Havens, ‘are the networksof formal and informal relationships towhich people are associated’. Thesecommunities can be formal or informal,demand little or much from participants,and may be composed either voluntarilyor as the ‘result of circumstances. [T]heimportant point’, write Schervish andHavens, ‘is that being connected to anarray of such life-settings is the basis forpeople becoming aware of needs andchoosing to respond.’9 ‘Communities ofparticipation’ thus track quite nicely with‘The Cultivation Cycle’ (also known asthe Five Is of fundraising — identification,interest, intervention, involvement,investment) defined by G. T. ‘Buck’Smith10 and ‘The Nurturing Fund-Raising Cycle’ described by Dunlop(identification, information, awareness,understanding, caring, involvement andcommitment).11

The researchers conclude that:

‘the level of measured charitable giving,and perhaps volunteering, depend less

than previously thought on issues ofgenerosity or other frameworks of con-sciousness. Instead, it depends on thefactors that generate the individual’sand the household’s communities ofparticipation, namely the density andmix of opportunities and obligations ofvoluntary association.’9

It is the job of the planned giving prac-titioner to facilitate the ‘density and mixof opportunities’. Simply put, this is called‘cultivation’. It also means that cultivationmust be purposeful. The purpose is todeepen participation. Put another way, theaim is to move from ‘identification’ to‘investment’ (or ‘commitment’).

Prince and File provide helpful counselon initiating prospects into communitiesof participation. For them, the key isconnection through charity networks.Through such networks, philanthropistsare invited to get involved and qualifycharities as objects of their philanthropy.Essentially this is word-of-mouth market-ing. ‘Most important’, write Prince andFile, ‘is that credibility of word-of-mouthis enhanced under two conditions; thesource of information is similar to the oneseeking input, and the source is of higheror desirable status.’8

PHILANTHROPIC STYLESEach philanthropic style has a definedcharity network though the Repayersare less dependent on charity networksin their philanthropic decision making.Furthermore, Prince and File’s researchsuggests that each type of nonprofit hasa distinct profile with a distinct weight-ing and mixture of philanthropic stylesto which it appeals.8

Compare, for example, the style profilesfor educational and medical causes withsocial service agencies. Educational andmedical organisations are highly supported

What research tells us about planned giving

Page 88

strategies necessary to bring them into theorganisation’s family of donors.

MARKET SEGMENTATIONThe consideration of donor motiva-tion and philanthropic styles leads toprescriptions for market segmentation ofplanned giving constituencies. Kotler andAndreasen have identified a ‘predilectionfor segmentation’ as a characteristic of‘customer-centered marketing’ and haveadvised the nonprofit marketing managerto ‘think segmentation’.12

If a nonprofit wants to segment itsbequest marketing, it should look toWillie Sutton for guidance, ratherthan Father Time. Willie Sutton, thegentleman bank robber, had segmentationdown pat. By his own admission, Suttonhit banks ‘because that is where themoney is’.13 This has long been a tenet ofmajor gift fundraising which uses researchto qualify prospects by net worth andincome, among other factors. Joulfaian, aneconomist with the US TreasuryDepartment, used IRS data to verifySutton’s theory as it applied to bequestdonors. Joulfaian found that people ofgreat wealth (estates in excess of $10m)made bequests that were approximatelythree times the value of gifts they made inthe ten years that preceded their death,while people of low to moderate wealth(estates under $1,000,000) made nearly allof their contributions during life and verylittle through bequest. He also found thatpeople were more likely to makecharitable gifts through their estates if theyhad large percentages of their assets tied tobusiness ownership and had survived adeceased spouse.14 The significance of thisfinding is reinforced by the Prince et al.study that reported that six of the sevenstyles were comprised of 70 per cent ormore business owners. The exception wasthe Dynasts of which 56 per cent were

by Repayers (43 per cent each). Socialservice agencies are the Repayers’ nexthighest priorities but at a much lowerlevel (9 per cent).8 In terms used bySchervish and associates, Repayers tend tobe ‘consumer’ philanthropists. They havebeen involved in educational and medicalcauses as students and patients. Thelargest benefactor groups of social serviceagencies, on the other hand, are Altruists(40 per cent) and Dynasts (26 per cent).These profiles are consistent with Scher-vish’s concept of ‘adoptive philanthropy’.5

For Altruists and Dynasts consump-tion is typically not an issue: Altruistsbelieve giving is a moral imperative,while Dynasts give because they believephilanthropy is everyone’s responsibility.8

These findings suggest that educationaland medical causes are correct to focusfirst on their ‘natural’ constituencies, ieRepayers who are alumni and gratefulpatients, respectively. Working this groupis not highly dependent on charitynetworks. It also suggests that educa-tion and medical causes should engagecharity networks if they are to maximisetheir philanthropic potential with thetop styles in their institutional profiles:Communitarians, Investors, Socialites andDynasts (for educational institutions) andInvestors, Socialites and Dynasts (formedical causes).

Those causes that have few or nonatural constituencies such as social serv-ice agencies and arts organisations will findfew or no Repayers among their majordonors. They must use charity net-works to recruit ‘adoptive’ philanthropists(another term coined by Schervish and hisassociates). One example is arts organisa-tions that are dominated by Com-munitarians and Socialites with strongparticipation by Investors and Dynasts.The type of cause therefore indicateswhere to look for prospective donors andwill define the leadership and fundraising

Brown

Page 89

business owners. The source of affluencefor the remaining 44 per cent wasinvesting, job or inheritance-principallythe last. (Prince et al., it should be noted,define a ‘major donor’ as ‘a person whocontributed $50,000 or more to a singlenon-profit within the last two years andmaintains $1 million or more in adiscretionary advisory account’.)7

On the face of it, these conclusionsmight argue for focusing on the highwealth group and ignoring the low tomoderate wealth group. Findings from theNational Council on Planned Giving(NCPG) survey indicate, however, thatindividuals with incomes of less than$75,000 per year reported 58 per centof the bequest expectancies.15 Thosewith incomes of $75,000 or more whoreported bequest intentions in the NCPGsurvey differed little from those below thatincome level when asked about motiva-tion or the channel that introduced themto bequest giving. The two groups did,however, exhibit crucial differences onthe motive of tax reduction and long-range planning, both of which were ofmuch greater importance to the higherincome group.7 Assuming income as aproxy for wealth, the NCPG survey datasuggest that the high income/wealthgroup has a greater need for technical (taxand financial) information than those inthe lower income/wealth group. Market-ing that stresses the mission of theorganisation and the ultimate uses towhich gifts would be put, on the otherhand, might be a better approach to thelower income/wealth group.15

As for age, bequests seem to have a longgestational period. Respondents to theNCPG survey indicated that age 49 waswhen they first provided for a bequest tocharity in their wills. Some 43 per centof the respondents were under the ageof 55; the mean age was 58.15 Basedon these statistics, organisations that seg-

ment their planned giving mailings by ageshould reassess the age threshold for thatstrategy.

In marketing bequests, organisationalsize and type do not matter. For institu-tions reporting bequest income, findingsbased on data collected for ‘Giving USA2001’ indicate little difference betweenlarge, medium and small organisations inthe proportion of charitable revenue thatcomes from matured bequests. Maturedbequest dollars as a percentage of totalcharitable revenue received by large,medium and small organisations were 14per cent, 12 per cent, and 11 per cent,respectively. Furthermore, ‘[t]he organiza-tion’s subsector [sic] [ie arts, education,health, religion, etc] did not matter. Eachtype of organization was equally likely,in statistical terms to receive bequestrevenue.’16 These findings suggest that awide range of organisations can success-fully mount planned giving programmes.The data further seem to suggest that oncean organisation gets a bequest programmeup and running, it could expect bequestincome amounting to 10 per cent or moreannually of its charitable revenue. Thatbequest giving has remained a steady 8 percent of total philanthropy in the USAbolsters this expectation.17

MARKETING CHANNELSClosely related to segmentation is theconcept of marketing channels. Kotlerand Andreasen define a channel as ‘aconduit for bringing together a marketerand a target customer at some place andtime for the purpose of facilitating atransaction.’12 Marketing channels includestores, sales representatives, wholesalers,telephones, advertising media and directmail. The NCPG survey15 found that thedominant marketing channels are word-of-mouth, a nonprofit’s own publica-tions and professional advisers, but that

What research tells us about planned giving

Page 90

and financial adviser communities and beprepared to respond to tax and planningconcerns. The latter are important tomore than three-quarters of those whohave created CRTs.15 The need for taxand planning information is greater forcreators of CRTs than it is for bequestdonors of the same age and income.17

Does this mean that Investors dominateamong creators of CRTs? That intriguingquestion is raised as Investors alone amongthe seven styles have a high aware-ness of the tax-saving consequences ofgiving.7 Prince et al.18 provide specificadvice for financial advisers working withthe philanthropically motivated affluentand explain how advisers can applyphilanthropic style concepts to help themserve these clients.

When it comes to marketing CharitableGift Annuities (CGAs), the NCPG surveyfound that a charity’s publications are thedominant marketing channel. Some 62per cent of respondents who contractedfor CGAs said they first learned about thegift vehicle from a nonprofit’s publishedmaterials. Introductions by ‘family andfriends’ and ‘legal and financial advisers’were reported by 13 per cent and 11 percent, respectively. The lesson: if an or-ganisation wants to market CGAs, theinformation it publishes and distributes toprospects is critical to the success of theprogramme.

Another lesson on CGAs: plain vanillais still the best ‘seller’ and more organisa-tions are ‘selling’ this. The grandfather ofsplit interest gifts, CGAs are available indeferred, ‘college’ and flexible forms aswell as the venerable immediate CGA.According to a survey for the AmericanCouncil on Gift Annuities (the ACGAsurvey), 92 per cent of CGAs are of theimmediate variety. The profile of thetypical annuitant has not changed inrecent years — a 77-year-old female.19

Prince and File found little interest in

the effectiveness of each channel varieswith the gift vehicle being marketed.The NCPG survey looked at bequests,charitable remainder trusts and charitablegift annuities.

Based on the findings of the NCPGsurvey, it appears that bequest givingmarketing should be multichannelled.The NCPG survey found that 75 per centof the respondents planning charitablebequests were first reached through threemarketing channels. These channels werea nonprofit’s published materials (34 percent), legal or financial advisers (21 percent) and family or friends (20 per cent).15

The last can be understood as word-of-mouth. As Prince and File pointout word-of-mouth can be influencedthrough charity networks.8 Lay volun-teers, therefore, should be involved inadvocating bequest giving to their peers.The lesson for practitioners is to use allthree channels to best advantage whenmarketing bequest giving.

CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUSTSIn strong contrast to bequest giving, theNCPG survey found that the majority ofcreators of Charitable Remainder Trusts(CRTs) first learned about these fromlegal or financial advisers. The roleof advisers has grown markedly sinceNCPG’s previous survey in 1992. Thepercentage of donors citing financial orlegal advisers as the first source of the ideafor a CRT grew from 14 per cent in 1992to 68 per cent. Compared to bequestdonors, CRT donors have higher medianincomes and are more likely to be maleand concerned with taxes and planningissues.15 Prince and File found that, nextto private foundations, CRTs are the giftvehicle of most interest to major donors.8

For practitioners, these findings under-score the need for gift planners and theirorganisations to be connected to the legal

Brown

Page 91

CGAs among major donors, indicatingthat the CGA is a middle marketphenomenon.8

What has changed is that one-thirdof the respondents to the ACGA sur-vey have started their programmes inthe past five years. Community founda-tions, arts organisations and environmen-tal organisations were the three fastestgrowing segments of the CGA providermarket.20

It would be incorrect to concludethat CGA forms other than the tradi-tional immediate CGA are unattractive.Deferred, college and flexible CGAscould be categorised as niche vehiclesor as vehicles that are unknown orpoorly understood. The findings concern-ing newcomers to the CGA arena areintriguing. It would be easy to over-interpret these findings, and more researchis needed. The data do seem to suggestthat nonprofits should seriously consideroffering CGAs if they are not alreadydoing so.

Before leaving CGAs, there is one finalquestion: do CGAs promote longevity?One might think so from reading theresults of a mortality study conducted byACGA in 2001. The study reported thatpersons purchasing commercial annuitieslive longer than the general populationand that on the average CGA annuitantslive two years longer than annuitants ofcommercial annuities.20

Perhaps this phenomenon can be at-tributed to the serenity associated withgood works. Or it may be the actuarialequivalent of attributing the sunrise to thecrowing of a rooster. Insurance companieshave long known that annuitants livelonger and have created different mor-tality tables for annuities than are used forlife insurance policies.21 In any case, aprospect for a CGA is likely to haverelatively good health as well as a strongintention to donate.

HYBRID GIFTSRecent research has uncovered an emerg-ing trend. Philanthropy may be in the eraof the ‘hybrid’ gift. By hybrid is meant acombination of the outright and plannedgifts by one donor. ‘Havens and Schervishshow that as a result of planned givingstrategies, donors are moving toward amix of inter vivos and bequest givingplans.’22

For 20 years, research by the Councilfor Aid to Education (CAE) has beentracking this trend in giving to highereducation and independent schools in theUSA. CAE publishes the results of itsannual survey of institutions as the ‘Volun-tary Support of Education (VSE)’. The‘VSE’ distinguishes between bequests anddeferred gifts; the latter are split interestgifts. The ‘2001 VSE’ took note of a trendthat peaked in 1998, which illustratedthat ‘deferred giving had been increas-ing gradually in importance as a formof individual giving, but it began todecline modestly thereafter’. In 1981–1982, deferred gifts accounted for 6 percent of all individual giving reported forthat year in the ‘VSE’. The figure grew to19 per cent in 1997–1998 while be-quests remained in the 20–25 per centrange. Since 1997–1998, deferred giftshave declined to 12 per cent of individualgiving in 2000–2001.

The ‘VSE’ concludes:

‘Deferred giving is very much affectedby the stock market since manydeferred gifts are made in the form ofstock. So, it is not surprising that infiscal year 2001, when the value ofstock declined, fewer of these instru-ments were established, and those thatwere were worth less.’23

The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS)has announced that it intends to studycharitable remainder trusts and other

What research tells us about planned giving

Page 92

mented and multichannelled. The verywealthy have more need for tax andfinancial information than other seg-ments. Marketing channels should includematerials directly distributed by the non-profit, take advantage of the influence oflegal or financial advisers and empowerfamily or friends as educators and advo-cates for planned giving. Bequest pro-grammes are not just for certain types ofcharities or for certain ages of prospectivedonors. Even small nonprofits may be ableto enjoy annual returns from bequestprogrammes of 10 per cent or more oftotal charitable revenue.

CRT donors share characteristics withthe very wealthy that make bequests tocharity. Tax and financial considerationsare very important to both and legal andfinancial advisers are the key marketingchannel for CRT donors.

Many newcomers have been launchingCGA programmes. The profile of thetypical CGA donor has remained stablefor many years — a factor that enablesissuers of CGAs to know what to expectof this programme. A nonprofit’s ownpublished materials are the key marketingchannel for CGAs. The influx of new-comers to the CGA arena suggests thatnonprofits not offering CGAs should con-sider adding them to their programmes.

Good research advances knowledge, butit also raises new questions. The researchsynthesised in this paper has provided a basefor future research and informed practice.More research, however, is needed torefine understandings of donor motivationand characteristics. This could lead tomore effective marketing segmentation andchannels. Researchers would also do wellto treat gifts of individual retirement ac-counts (IRAs) and qualified retirementplans, gifts to donor advised funds, and thecreation of private foundations and sup-porting organisations as separate categoriesof planned gifts. Though more limited in

charitable trusts and publish the findings.24

While new data are being extracted andanalysed, practitioners should be alert toanecdotal evidence that donors are think-ing of making hybrid gifts composed ofoutright, bequest and deferred gifts, allaimed at the same project or objective.Institutions and organisations that fosterclose working relationships among majorgift and planned-giving officers may havean advantage if this trend continues.

As the hybrid gift trend has emergedsince Prince et al. conducted their re-search in the early 1990s,7 the trendcan be generalised across or between theseven philanthropic styles. This representsa fruitful area for further research.

CONCLUSIONSThe desire to support a charity and theultimate use of planned gifts by a charityare powerful motivators common to allmakers of planned gifts. Charitable net-works are important for engaging donorsand validating their philanthropic choices.Cultivation techniques should work pur-posefully to deepen donor connections toa charity’s mission and outcomes.

Donors with great wealth operate dif-ferently from other people. They have thepower to achieve results independently ofothers. They share the basic motivationswith all donors but also have a greaterneed for tax and planning information.Cultivation involves teaching the verywealthy philanthropist how a cause canmake a difference in the lives of others.Marketing materials for the very wealthyshould contain tax and financial informa-tion. It makes sense to approach thevery wealthy as a discrete segment inthe planned-giving marketplace. Part ofthat approach may be encouraging thesedonors to consider both planned andoutright gifts to the same objective.

Bequest marketing should be seg-

Brown

Page 93

their applications, charitable lead trusts andpooled income funds are also worthy ofresearch effort.

The most prolific and influential re-searchers in the field of donor motivationare Schervish and his colleagues and Princeand his associates. While the two havesome things in common, their core con-cepts differ greatly. Prince segments majordonors into seven psychographic/benefitstyles, each with its own motivational andaction profile. Schervish defines conceptssuch as hyperagency and communities ofparticipation that are common to all verywealthy philanthropists. While this paperhas shown that the two systems can be usedin tandem by practitioners, where does thisleave theory? Each paradigm should bereplicated by independent research. Eachresearcher should update their findings inlight of recent events. Schervish has donethis in regard to the inter-generationalwealth transfer,25 but more work can bedone. How, for example, has the war onterror and the long bear market affectedhyperagency in the very wealthy? Are theyless confident of their ability to bend theirworld according to their will?

Prince and associates also have challengesin this area. It has been a decade since theirresearch on donor motivation was pub-lished. In addition to current challengesfrom war and the economy, the USA hasseen multiple scandals evidencing a break-down in the governance of for-profit andnonprofit corporations and the emergenceof the internet. How have donors andtheir charity networks responded to theseevents? Do they seek a broad range ofopinions or desire more objective informa-tion? Is there more caution about newcharities and increased suspicion aboutestablished causes? These are importantquestions for research on donor motivationin the 21st century.

The research synthesised in this paperis presented to advance fundraising and

planned giving as professions built on abody of knowledge based on theory andresearch. ‘As Bloland and Bornstein as-serted . . . ‘‘Creating a theory base that ischanged by research, and a research basethat is informed by theory is considered bymany students of the professions to bethe most important tactic in the profes-sionalization process.’’ ’26

To continue this progression, prac-titioners must grow as consumers ofresearch and demand more from it. Thiscommitment to research represents noth-ing less than the future of the profession.

REFERENCES

(1) Kelly, K. S. (1998) ‘Effective fund-raisingmanagement’. Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Mahwah, NJ; including acitation to Carbone, R. F. (1989) ‘Fundraising as a profession’ (monograph no.3), Clearinghouse for Research on FundRaising, University of Maryland,College Park, MD, p. 46.

(2) Kelly, K. S. (see Ref. 1, pp. 105–106)including a citation to Carbone, R. F.(1986) ‘Agenda for research on fundraising’ (monograph no. 2),Clearinghouse for Research on FundRaising, University of Maryland,College Park, MD.

(3) Andrews, R., Biggs, M. and Seidel, M.(eds) ‘The Columbia world ofquotations’ online edn, ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York,www.bartleby.com. Accessed 5th July,2003.

(4) Maslow, A. (1970) ‘Motivation andpersonality’, 2nd edn, Harper & Row,New York.

(5) Schervish, P. G. (1997) ‘Major donors,major motives: the people and purposesbehind major gifts’, in Burlingame, D. F.and Hodge, J. M. (eds) ‘Developingmajor gifts’, ‘New directions forphilanthropic fundraising’ series, IndianaUniversity Center for Philanthropy,Indianapolis, IN, Vol. 16, pp. 88–89.

What research tells us about planned giving

Page 94

2–3, p. 9.(17) AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy (2002)

‘Giving USA 2002’, AAFRC Trust forPhilanthropy, Indianapolis, IN.

(18) Prince, R. A, Rathburn, G. L. andSteiner, C. E. (1997) ‘The charitablegiving handbook’. The NationalUnderwriter Co., Cincinnati, OH.

(19) Minton, F. (2002) ‘Report andcomments of the American Council ofGift Annuities 1999 survey of charitablegift annuities’, ACGA, Indianapolis, IN.

(20) Minton, F. (2002) ‘Gift annuities: howthey work and why donors like them’. APlanned Giving Today Publication,Edmonds, WA.

(21) Vaughan, E. J. (1992) ‘Fundamentals ofrisk and insurance’ 6th edn, John Wiley& Sons, New York.

(22) AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy (2002)‘Giving USA 2002’, AAFRC Trust,Indianapolis, IN, pp. 75–76 includingcitation to Havens, J., Schervish, P. andO’Herlihy, M. ‘Who gives and why?’Draft chapter for ‘The nonprofit sector:a research handbook’, 2nd edn, YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CT,forthcoming.

(23) Council for Aid to Education (2002)‘2001 voluntary support of education’,CAE, New York.

(24) AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy (2001)‘Giving USA 2001’, AAFRC Trust,Indianapolis, IN.

(25) Havens, J. J. and Schervish, P. G. (2003)‘Why the $41 Trillion Wealth Transfer isStill Valid: A Review of Challenges andQuestions’, The Journal of Gift Planning,Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 11–15, 47–50.

(26) Kelly, K. S. (see ref. 1, p. 105) includinga citation to Bloland, H. G. andBornstein, R. ‘Fund raising in transition:strategies for professionalization’ inBurlingame, D. F. and Hulse, L. J. (1991)(eds) ‘Taking fund raising seriously:advancing the profession and the practiceof raising money’, Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco.

(6) Thomas, S. (2001) ‘My most importantlesson’, Planned Giving Today, Vol. XII,No. 12, p. 6.

(7) Prince, R. A., File, K. M. and Gillespie,J. E. (1993) ‘Philanthropic styles’,Nonprofit management & leadership, Vol. 3,pp. 255–268.

(8) Prince, R. A. and File, K. M. (1994)‘The seven faces of philanthropy: a newapproach to cultivating major donors’,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

(9) Schervish, P. G. and Havens, J. J. (1997)‘Social participation and charitablegiving: a multivariate analysis’, Voluntas:the international journal of voluntary andnon-profit organisations, [sic] Vol. 8, p. 242.

(10) Sturtevant, W. T. (1997) ‘The artfuljourney: cultivating and soliciting themajor gift’, Bonus Books, Chicago, IL.See also Smith, G. T. (1997) ‘Thedevelopment program’ in Rowland, A.W. (ed.) ‘Handbook of institutionaladvancement’, Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco, as cited in Kelly.

(11) Dunlop, D. R. (1993) ‘Major giftprograms’ in Worth, M. J. (ed.)‘Educational fund raising’, AmericanCouncil on Education Series on HigherEducation/Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ.

(12) Kotler, P. and Andreasen, A. R. (1987)‘Strategic marketing for nonprofitorganizations’, 3rd edn, Prentice-Hall,Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

(13) Haas, B. (1963) ‘The ten basiccommandments of successful fundraising’, Alexander Haas Martin &Partners, Inc., Atlanta, GA, n. d. reprintof 1963 address.

(14) Joulfaian, D. (2001) as cited in ‘GivingUSA 2001’, AAFRC Trust forPhilanthropy, Indianapolis, IN.

(15) National Committee on Planned Giving(2001) ‘Planned giving in the UnitedStates 2000: a survey of donors’, NCPG,Indianapolis, IN.

(16) AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy (2002)‘Bequests and other forms of plannedgiving’, Giving USA Update, Vol. 2, No.

Brown

Page 95