Building on an earlier social relations conceptualization of philanthropy as a two-way, mutual, interactive relationship between donors and recipient groups, this article explores the current growth of donor control. Arguing that philanthropy has moved in the opposite direction from what a social relations theory posited, the article identifies and examines organizational forms that provide donors today with opportunities for increased control by creating new relationships of (a) donor exclusivity (donor networks, giving circles), (b) donor intermediaries between donors and philanthropic advisors and providers of other services including donor-advised funds, and (c) donor oversight between “social investors” and their nonprofit “partners” in high-engagement philanthropy. These categories emerged from a critical review of recent literature. The article concludes with an explanation for increased donor control that is then applied to suggest how to elevate the influence of recipient groups over charitable gifts and bring greater balance into the social relationship between donor and recipient groups.
Abramson, A.J., Salamon, L.M., & Steuerle, C.E. (1999). The nonprofit sector and the federal budget. In E. Boris & C. E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 99-139). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
2.
Addams, J. (1964). Democracy and social ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1902)
3.
Backer, T.E., Miller, A.N., & Bleeg, J.E. (2004). Donor perspectives on nonprofit capacity building . Encino, CA: Human Interaction Research Institute.
4.
Blum, D.E. (2002, March 21). Ties that bind: More donors specify terms for their gifts to charity. TheChronicle of Philanthropy , 14, 11.
5.
Boris, E.T., & Steuerle, C.E. (2006). Scope and dimensions of the nonprofit sector. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 66-88). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
Brill, B. (2002, April-May). Incorporating philanthropic planning adds value to your client services and makes good business sense for you. Journal of Practical EstatePlanning, pp. 25-31.
7.
Eikenberry, A.M. (2003, June). Promoting philanthropy and substantive democracy . Paper prepared for the l6th Annual Public Administration Theory Network Conference, Anchorage, AK.
Eikenberry, A.M., & Kluver, J.D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?Public Administration Review, 64, 132-140.
10.
Foord, E. (2003, November). Philanthropy 101: Donor-advised funds . Financial Planning Association Journal, pp. 66-73.
11.
Gingold, D. (2000, July). New frontiers in philanthropy. Fortune. Retrieved from http://www.timeinc.net/fortune/sections/
12.
Gose, B. (2003). A revolution was ventured, but what did it gain? TheChronicle of Philanthropy, 15, 21.
13.
Grace, K.S., & Wendroff, A.L. (2001). High impact philanthropy: How donors, boards, and nonprofit organizations can transform communities . New York: John Wiley.
14.
Greene, S.G. (2002, September 5). In disaster 's wake: Charities missed opportunities. TheChronicle of Philanthropy, 14, 22.
15.
Hall, H. (2003). Taking control of everything. TheChronicle of Philanthropy, 12, 12.
16.
Jonsson, P. (2004, December 30). An emerging philanthropic trend: The giving circle. Christian Science Monitor, p. 1.
17.
Keister, L.A. (2000). Wealth in America: Trends on wealth inequality . New York: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Kelly, K.S. (1991). Fundraising and public relations: A critical analysis . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
19.
Kelly, K.S. (1998). Effective fundraising management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Kerkman, L. (2006, May 4). A soaring year: Assets at donor-advised fund rose by more than 20%. TheChronicle of Philanthropy , pp. 27-32.
21.
Kerkman, L., & Lewis, N. (2004). Donor funds are on the rise again. TheChronicle of Philanthropy, 6, 16.
22.
Marger, M. (2005). Social inequalities. New York : McGraw-Hill.
23.
Morino, M., & Shore, B. (2005). High-engagement philanthropy: A bridge to a more effective social sector. Washington, DC: Venture Philanthropy Partners and Community Wealth Ventures.
24.
Odendahl, T. (1990). Charity begins at home: Generosity and self-interest among the philanthropic elite. New York: Basic Books.
25.
Ostrander, S.A. (1984). Women of the upper class. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
26.
Ostrander, S.A. (1995). Money for change: Social movement philanthropy at Haymarket People's Fund. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
27.
Ostrander, S.A. (2004). Moderating contradictions of feminist philanthropy: Women's community organizations and the Boston Women's Fund (1995 to 2000) . Gender & Society, 18, 29-46.
28.
Ostrander, S.A., & Schervish, P.G. (1990). Giving and getting: Philanthropy as social relation. In J. Van Til (Ed.), Critical issues in American philanthropy (pp. 67-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
Ostrander, S.A., Silver, I., & McCarthy, D. (2005). Mobilizing money strategically: Opportunities for grantees to be active agents in social movement philanthropy. In D. Faber & D. McCarthy (Eds.), Foundations for social change (pp. 271-289). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
30.
Ostrower, F. (1995). Why the wealthy give. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
Panepento, P. (2006, October 26). Failure to adapt to major societal changes could cause big trouble, fund raisers told. TheChronicle of Philanthropy.
32.
Pratt, J. (2004, Summer). Analyzing the dynamics of funding: Reliability and autonomy. TheNonprofit Quarterly, pp. 8-13.
33.
Rutnik, T.A., & Bearman, J. (2005). Giving together: A national scan of giving circles and shared giving. New York: National Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers.
34.
Salamon, L. (1995). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government. In Partners in public service (pp. 33-49). Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press.
35.
Salamon, L. (2003). The resilient sector: The State Of Nonprofit America . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
36.
Schervish, P.G. (2006). The moral biography of wealth. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 477-492.
37.
Schervish, P.G., & Havens, J.J. (2001). Wealth and the commonwealth: New findings on where-withal and philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 30, 5-25.
38.
Seigel, D., & Yancey, J. (2003). Philanthropy's forgotten resource? Engaging the individual donor: The state of donor education today & a leadership agenda for the road ahead. Retrieved from http://newvisionsprd.org
39.
Silver, I. (2006). Unequal partnerships: Beyond the rhetoric of philanthropic collaboration. New York: Routledge .
40.
Smith, S.R., & Gronbjerg, K. (2006). Scope and theory of government-nonprofit relations . In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 221-242). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
Steuerle, C.E. (1999). Will donor-advised funds revolutionize philanthropy? Charting civil society. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
