Opportunity Areas are specific calls to action to guide submissions during the Ideas Phase. We have separated our Opportunity Areas into two categories: “bridging the evidence to practice gap” and “design as research”.
Opportunity Areas in the first category “bridging the evidence to practice gap” draw upon a large body of research and behavioral science about the challenges donors face. This body of research is growing, but very little of it is accessible to or taken up by nonprofits, platforms, and intermediaries. When submitting concepts within this Opportunity Area, use the existing evidence-based insights included in each prompt and consider the ways in which your solution can optimize and improve the donor experience.
Opportunity Areas in the second category “design as research” represent important topics that could benefit from additional insights or new product solutions. When submitting concepts to this opportunity area, share user insights uncovered through your design research to help the entire field better understand how these donor segments experience giving. This could include but is not limited to: insights from beneficiary interviews or research sessions, community-based and/or academic research you've drawn on yourself, or findings from product testing performed to-date. Note: While the categories below center on race, gender, and age, we welcome ideas that address the intersectionality of these identities and more.
Both the Better Giving Studio and IDEO hope this Challenge can be an opportunity for alternative, additive research that may supplement pre-existing academic research in the field. Particularly for the topic areas where there is a dearth of research or product solutions, we hope the context gathered by participants (user research, beneficiary feedback) can support and bridge the gap in knowledge.
1. Intention [Bridging the Evidence to Practice Gap]
Research shows that people rarely think proactively about giving. Individuals tend to give simply when asked, especially by friends or family members. This type of impulsive giving can lead to missed opportunities for donors to give to the organizations that most align to their personal values, interests, and community. Research has shown that setting giving goals is one way that helps donors be more thoughtful about their giving; evidence shows it can also increase giving amounts (Parbhoo, Reynolds, Tantia, Trewn & Welch, 2018). Other examples of intentionality and planning include knowing how much to give, identifying which causes to prioritize, making a plan alone or with friends and family, and seeing progress against those plans. How might we introduce more planning, intentionality, and alignment in the giving process, helping donors tap into both the emotional and thoughtful aspects of giving?
2. Simplification of Choice [Bridging the Evidence to Practice Gap]
In the US alone, donors can choose from nearly 400,000 charitable organizations. The large number and complexity of giving options make it difficult to choose, compelling people to make spontaneous decisions or defer a choice altogether. Through research, we know curation—the organization and simplification of information—increases the likelihood of donating, as well as donation amounts. In a collaborative study between Ideas42 and Intentional Futures, curated lists of charities, dubbed “GiveLists,” were found to reduce choice overload for donors and increase dollars to effective organizations. Additionally, peer recommendations help simplify choice overload and are more effective than celebrity or expert endorsements (Parbhoo, Tennant, Welch & Davis, 2020). How might we simplify choice when identifying causes and organizations to support?
3. Collective Giving [Bridging the Evidence to Practice Gap]
Collective giving is the pooling of funds by a group of individuals, put towards a specific, mutually determined cause. Current and past research on collective giving in the U.S. has shown that members give more, give more strategically, and are more civically engaged when they give together (Bearman & Franklin, 2018). Micro-donations (small sums donated by many) can turn small dollars into big impact through vehicles like giving circles, crowdfunding, and more. Giving happens in many collective settings—the home, the workplace, religious institutions, or via identity-based groups or giving circles—but much of this behavior still happens offline. How might we supercharge the act of giving together by creating digital products that make collective giving easier and more accessible?
4. Black, Indigenous, & People of Color (BIPOC) in digital philanthropy [Design as Research]
Charitable giving by communities of color is growing more quickly than any other demographic in America. Sixty-three percent of Latinx households make charitable donations. Nearly two-thirds of Black households donate to organizations and causes, to the tune of $11 billion each year (Lewis, 2018). Research on wealthy BIPOC givers suggests that Black, Latinx, Asian, Arab, and Native American communities in the United States give very differently from one another, and from white donors (Vaid & Maxton, 2019). Yet, there are still significant gaps in research around how BIPOC donors across wealth levels give and what best supports their giving journey. How might solutions specifically empower BIPOC donors, inspiring racial equity across the giving ecosystem?
5. Women in Digital Philanthropy [Design as Research]
Women represent 51% of total wealth in the U.S.— a grand total of $14 trillion. Research by Indiana University’s Women’s Philanthropy Institute has found that women often give differently than men. For example, women are more likely to give, and to give more than their male counterparts. They are more likely to give online, to give collectively through giving circles, to spread their giving across more organizations, and to support women and girls’ causes (Mesch, Ottoni-Wilhelm & Osili, 2020). Though gender differences in giving are well-researched, most digital solutions are not designed with women’s preferences and giving styles in mind. How might solutions specifically empower female-identifying donors, inspiring gender equity across the giving ecosystem?
6. The Next Generation: Young Donors [Design as Research]
Our world is changing, and the culture of giving is shifting radically along with it. Who will lead the next generation of giving, and how might we best support those users? A study by the Blackbaud institute indicates that people in Generation Z (also known as “post-Millennials,” born in the late 1990s to early 2010s) represent only two percent of the giving pie, but are increasing in influence. For this rising generation, giving is characterized by additional trends: online and mobile engagement, social media use, and non-monetary contributions such as volunteering, activism, and spreading the word (Blackbaud, 2018). This Opportunity Area focuses on young donors and future norms in giving that we can’t yet imagine and welcomes submissions that address not only giving of money, but also of time, talent and voice. How might solutions support young donors to radically engage in and reimagine the next generation of giving?
7. What are we missing?
Want to suggest solutions outside of the above framing? Tell us how other ideas might achieve the impact we’re discussing, and how your approach works.
Cited Sources:
- “America Gives: A Survey of Americans’ Generosity After September 11” — Kathryn S. Steinberg, Patrick M. Rooney (Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, March 2015)
- “Behavior and Charitable Giving 2019 Update” (ideas42, July 2019)
- “Best of Intentions: Using Behavioral Design to Unlock Charitable Giving” — Omar Parbhoo, Katy Davis, Robert Reynolds, Piyush Tantia, Pranav Trewn, and Sarah Welch (ideas42, August 2018)
- “Cultures of Giving: Energizing and Expanding Philanthropy by and for Communities of Color” (Philanthropy News Digest, January 2012)
- “Dynamics of Hosting: Giving Circles and Collective Giving Groups” — Jessica Bearman and Jason Franklin (Collective Giving Research Group, November 2018)
- “History of Commitment and Involvement of the Religious Community in Ending Hunger” — Kay A. Bengston (Food Policy Working Group, October 2012)
- “Lessons from the GiveList How Expert Curation Can Simplify Giving” — Omar Parbhoo, Raegan Tennant, Sarah Welch, and Katy Davis (ideas42, April 2020)
- “Millennials in the Nonprofit Workforce Present Challenges and Opportunities” — Teri Behrens and Tory Martina (Johnson Center, September 2020)
- “Nonprofits Led by People of Color Win Less Grant Money With More Strings” — Jim Rendon (Chronicle of Philanthropy, May 2020)
- “Percentage of Americans Donating to Charity at New Low” — Jeffrey M. Jones (Gallup, May 2020)
- “Racial Equity In Philanthropy: Closing the Funding Gap” — Cheryl Dorsey, Jeff Bradach, and Peter Kim (Bridgespan, August 2020)
- “Snapshot: The Impact of Giving Together” — Angela M. Eikenberry and Jessica Bearman (University of Nebraska Omaha, May 2009)
- “The Apparitional Donor: Understanding and Engaging High Net Worth Donors of Color” — Urvashi Vaid and Ashindi Maxton (Donors of Color Network, January 2019)
- “The Color Of Money And The Culture Of Giving” — Kimberly Lewis (Forbes Nonprofit Council, November 2019)
- “The Next Generation of American Giving” — Mark Rovner (Blackbaud Institute for Philanthropic Impact, April 2018)
- “The State of Philanthropy: Why Millennials Will Revive the Nonprofit Sector” — Judin Rodin (Rockefeller Foundation, June 2015)
- “Volunteers of America: 123 Years of Service” (Volunteers of America)
- “Women Give Research by the Women's Philanthropy institute"— Debra Mesch, Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm, and Una Osili (Women’s Philanthropy Institute and Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2020)
