Selena Anguiano

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England’s Arts (Case Study)
August 2008
Presented to City University (as required) for the diploma: MA-Culture, Policy and Management

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Table of Contents.………………………………………………………….…..
1 Tables ………………...………………………………………………………....
2 Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………...
3 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………...
4 Declaration………………………………………………………………………
5 Disclaimer……………………………………………………………………….
6 Abstract………………………………………………………………………….
7 Chapter 1- Introduction………………………………………………………….
8 1.1 Literature Review…………………………………………………..
11 1.2 Fundraising/Philanthropy Experts………………………………….
12 1.3 Additional Material…………………………………………………
13 Chapter 2- Methodology………………………………………………………..
14 2.1 Books and Reports 2.1.a Research Questions 2.2 Interviews…………………………………………………………...
15 2.3 Desk Research………………………………………………………
19 Chapter 3- Research…………………………………………………………….
20 3.1 Philanthropy-A Very Brief Start 3.1.a-U.S.-Avoiding Triviality and Inadequacies of the Federal Government 3.1.b- England-Strategic Beginnings Give Birth to a State of Reticence…………………………………………………
22 3.2 Current Motivations for Individual Giving in the U.S. and England...24 3.2.a Non-profit Individual Giving Percentages………………….
27 3.3 Deterrents to Individual Giving in England…………………………..
28 3.4 Case Study Interviews:……………………………………………….
30 3.4.a-„Suck It Up‟-Holly Oliver/The John F. Kennedy Center 3.4.b-One Hand Can‟t Clap-Shipra Ogra/London Bubble………..
33 Chapter 4-Conclusion……………………………………………………………..
36 4.1 A Concise Model of Practical Individual Giving for London Bubble...
39 4.2 Further Recommendations…………………………………………….
40 Appendix (ces)…………………………………………………………………….
42 References/Bibliography………………………………………………………….
59

1

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Table(s)

Table 1- A Concise Model of Practical Individual Giving for London Bubble

2

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Abbreviations

United States- U.S. United Kingdom- U.K. Arts Council England-ACE Department of Culture, Media and Sport-DCMS John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts-KC London Bubble Theatre Company-Bubble

3

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Acknowledgements

This paper is complete owing in part to the generosity of time, patience, support and spirit of many individuals. In particular, the following people graciously extended their knowledge, expertise and care. I therefore humbly and gratefully acknowledge and offer my gratitude for their contributions to this study.

Ms. Alison Meyric Hughes (City University Dept. of Culture, Policy and Management) Ms. Vicky Woollard (City University Dept. of Culture, Policy and Management) Ms. Shipra Ogra (Producer, London Bubble Theatre Company) Ms. Holly Oliver (Manager for Individual Giving, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts) Artie Olaison (Associate Artistic Director, Dallas Children‟s Theatre) Ms. Sharon Bond (Giving USA) Mr. Samuel Petheridge, (Volunteer and Acting Participant, London Bubble Theatre Company) Ms. Cass Weston (Paris, France) Ms. Jacqueline Raper (Washington, DC Many thanks for that booklet) Ms. Rosa Barros (London, England) Ms. Gaynor Dillin (London, England) Mr. Colin Mercer (Thanks for help with the title and Soho) Mr. Frank P. Anguiano, Sr. (My guardian angel)

4

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Declaration

Discretionary powers are granted to the University Librarian for this paper to be copied in whole or part without further reference to the author. Permission is limited to single copies, for study purposes only and is subject to normal conditions of acknowledgement. It is expected that discretion will be used in reference to the participatory individuals and organizations discussed within.

I, Selena Anguiano (the author), retain the copyright.

August 2008

5

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Disclaimer

The information provided by or about specific organizations in this paper is presented for academic purposes only. Any references to organizations and individuals, and information they provided should not be taken out of the context of this study. All attempts were made to distance individuals from organizations they work for if they requested such actions be taken with respect to their participation and information they provided. Conclusions and recommendations I make refer singularly to the London-based organization I address within the paper and do not reflect on any other art organization(s) unless it is so stated. SAA

6

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Abstract

This paper investigates undocumented and documented factors associated with the culture of individual giving in the United States. The intent is of determining individual giving practices that best suit the capacity of an English arts organization not currently employing individual giving as a means of generating income. Predicated on the hypothesis that English arts organizations were challenged to explore alternative methods of fundraising in response to recent Arts Council England (ACE) funding appropriations, cuts and government policies, the study focuses on a small community-arts based Theatre Company in Southeast London. The organization lost all ACE funding save a one-off transitional disbursement on April 1, 2008. With due consideration given to actions and plans the organization engaged in response to new financial incapacities, the study will determine individual giving methods that have the most potential for strengthening the company now and offering new means for longevity. The study draws on the experiences and personal practices of an individual in the discipline of individual giving in the U.S. Further to those experiences and practices, the study also analyzes the culture of giving in the U.S. and England, texts, interviews, and expert information that inform methodical, strategic approaches to fundraising, available to arts organizations and individuals for instant consumption and regurgitation.

The conclusion formed is that an English arts organization successful in this arena of fundraising must consider the undisclosed information related to the U.S. donor/organization relationship necessary for utilizing individual giving practices. In addition, the organization must fully assess their own capacity, responsibility, attitude and the strategic elements necessary for implementation and management of individual giving methods. All of these factors have historical foundations that require English arts organizations have a basic knowledge. Essentially, with proper education, planning and guts, arts organizations in England have a greater capacity for individual giving than they currently practice. Numerous organizations fail to realize the potential this avenue provides because of a diversity of factors past, present and future. SAA (Word Count: 10,253) 7

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Chapter 1- Introduction

‘Self evidently cultural philanthropy will not increase because a report calls for it or because the cultural sector needs it or because society is generally richer. It will happen only if the cultural sector is better able to develop the right relationships with potential donors, is clear about its ‘ask’ and effective in management of those donors, whether those donors are going to give £1 or £1m.’ Colin Tweedy, CEO of Arts and Business, Response to the launch of Private Giving for the Public Good, Friday, 25 April 2008.

In other words, giving is not a one-way communication. It is not merely about an organization or individual artist receiving money from a patron. Regarding fundraising in the arts, Colin Tweedy (2008) states that actions speak louder than words and those actions are the responsibility of organizations and individuals who hope to benefit.

The practice of giving around the world is inherently an altruistic endeavour. Regardless of the transparent reasons associated with giving, such as tax or in-kind benefits, philanthropic measures make people feel good about them selves and connect them to their communities. The help individuals offer sustains countless nonprofit organizations everywhere in the world. Because of the generosity of philanthropists, individuals that want to share their talents and skills are able to do so as well.

The cultural and performing arts sector benefits greatly from individual support. While income from ticket and merchandising sales, government subsidy and grants, trusts and foundations, corporate sponsorship, partnerships and even volunteers are other avenues for income, all of them are tenuous funding sources, rapidly and constantly fluctuating in response to a larger, evolving economy.

In the United States, non-profit arts organizations of all sizes are almost completely dependent on monetary contributions, from individuals and corporates alike. Fund raising is a forgone conclusion for both established and fledgling arts organizations in order to maintain a working institution. Therefore, the practice of individual giving in the U.S. requires a more personal relationship to exist between the organization and the donor. That relationship is successful due in part to various factors, like the active

8

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

involvement of patrons, the honesty and sincerity of development staff and a willingness to accept the responsibility of what might be considered an uncomfortable task, asking for money.

In England, non-profit arts organizations rely on just as large a variety of sources to operate properly. However, a great portion of English arts organizations rely on allocations from local, regional and national quasi-governmental bodies. An incentive to having government support the arts diminishes the use of individual giving practices in the country. Without the need to incorporate individual giving within the regular fundraising structure, knowing how to really create that donor/organization relationship is a skill lost on English arts organizations.

In an effort to understand why the facility is lacking in England, I focused my studies on giving. I made educated comparisons between U.S. and English fundraising and I discerned early on that individual giving is not a high priority for arts practitioners and organizations in England.

However at the end of 2007, money from the English government to arts organizations stopped. In December, various papers published the news that ACE would make catastrophic cuts to arts organizations across the whole of England. Suddenly individual giving began to gain importance; negative attitudes that prevailed swiftly changed. In my reckoning, arts practitioners in England began, perhaps for the first time, to think critically and strategically about diversifying their methods for obtaining funding.

Following on the heels of the announcement regarding potential ACE funding cuts, two major stories broke in late February of this year. The BBC reported approximately £440 million in National Lottery sports and arts funding were diverted to support the Olympics. (The BBC (Online) News Channel. Monday, February 25, 2008)

Various news agencies also speculated on the McMaster report. Published and distributed by the DCMS in early 2008, the report was commissioned and approved by James Purnell, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The paper defined 9

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

the word excellence, extolled the virtue of its place in the arts and determined a standard for how the government would evaluate and monitor excellence as they had defined it. (McMaster, 2008)

Organizations that meet the standards of excellence as determined by the McMaster evaluation receive the funding necessary to continue producing and presenting the arts; those that do not meet the standards must find other ways of generating income or potentially bow out. (McMaster, 2008) Sir Brian McMaster‟s report was evocative, creating a frenzy of discussion about who is best to determine excellence in the arts and which of the many arts organizations in England are excellent. On the heels of this paper, ACE formally withdrew funding from 196 arts organizations across England in what many consider the most sinister, bloody, unprovoked, unwarranted and as yet unjustified act in the bodies‟ 50 years of existence.

The McMaster report, the arbitrary ACE funding cuts, money diverted to the Olympics, and countless newspaper articles provided the impetus for me to research individual giving in England. This practice of fundraising has great potential for England, for London, this city that declared its intentions to be the „world‟s cultural hub‟. The paper will therefore explore individual giving practices from both documented and undocumented angles in an effort to determine which have the most relevance for sustaining English arts organizations and perhaps in small part, help London realize that goal.

10

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

1.1 Literature Review

Individual professionals, organizations and institutions, including the City University Culture, Policy and Management Department, have produced a large amount of research in the arena of individual giving. Two published studies are particularly noteworthy: Securing Your Organization’s Future: A Complete Guide to Fundraising Strategies (Seltzer, 2001), and Fundraising Management: analysis, planning and practice (Jay and Sargeant, 2004)

Seltzer (2001) offered a comprehensive guide to building a U.S. non-profit organization. Citing examples from case studies of organizations, he illustrated how organizations sustain and advocate themselves through numerous fundraising techniques. Jay and Sargeant (2004) also explored fundraising practices, primarily within a British context, offering readers a systematic guide that focuses on the historical nature of giving in order for the reader to understand available fundraising options.

The literature listed above, in addition to similar material reviewed, was a foundation for this study. However, on the following points, this study diverges from the conclusions of the prior research. 

Seltzer (2001) concluded by means of a clinical, recycled list of reasons, why individuals decide to give; discussion of the „feel-good‟ nature of giving couched in much the same rhetoric as when relating the impact the tangible benefits of giving has for those who contribute.



Jay and Sargeant (2004) established the motivations, qualities and reasons why individuals start and stop support of an organization by building those determinations on a „broad theoretical and practical‟ foundation. (Jay and Sargeant, 2004: 94)

These materials each offer comprehensive, systematic processes and advice for arts organizations to approach individual giving. However, the review of this material concludes while a substantial amount of methodical data exists on the subject, few

11

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

documented resources concerning individual giving from the art organization or individual contributor‟s perspective exist. Due to a lack of this information, English arts organizations make decisions whether to adopt individual giving practices based on long-established, potentially negative attitudes, myths and assumptions.

Given the amount of material available, that presents processes for implementation and management of individual giving in both countries, this paper does not offer such information.

1.2 Fundraising/Philanthropy Experts

Experts in the field of fundraising and philanthropy provide online and hard copy information for the contributor and the fundraiser to learn about the potential and benefits associated with effective individual giving and overall fundraising in both countries. These experts include professional fundraisers, artists and arts managers in the performing and cultural arts and across various other industries. Research conducted on individual giving and fundraising in the U.S. and England uncovered the following organizations: 

GivingUSA The primary function of this organization is gathering and publishing information on giving and the status of giving in the United States each year. The organization also publishes a report every three months on news and trends related to philanthropy in the country. Their mission is, „Advancing the research, education and public understanding of philanthropy (…).‟ (GivingUSA, http://www.givingusa.org/gusa/mission.cfm, Accessed June 28, 2008)



Arts&Business „Our purpose is to enable business and its people to be more successful by engaging with the arts and to increase resources for the arts from businesses and its people.‟ (Arts and Business http://www.aandb.org.uk/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,3, Accessed June 28, 2008)

12

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Arts&Business provides numerous initiatives for the benefit of the arts and business sector to meet, connect and share their skills and knowledge for the growth and sustainability of each; these initiatives include: GAIN, Investment Programmes, research, evaluation and information, the Skills Bank and Training to name a few. All of these are designed to, „offer advice, training, networking and consultancy on a wide range of issues to business and the arts (…).‟ (Arts and Business, http://www.aandb.org.uk/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,3, Accessed June 28, 2008)

These sites do not offer the more frank information about the organization and individual donor relationship. Yet, information available at the Arts and Business site enforces the methods chosen for the London Bubble‟s individual giving model. Additionally, the statistical information i.e. updated percentages on individual giving in both countries, was available at these websites. That information will be discussed in greater depth in Chapter 3.2.a

1.3 Additional Material

Various news articles, commentaries and published works on the phenomenon of philanthropy, fundraising and giving in the U.S. and England played an enormous part in determining the topic and course of this study. Noteworthy articles that informed this course of study include Mark Brown‟s report of the McMaster review from The Guardian on May 14, 2008 and the BBC‟s report on millions in sport and arts funding diverted to the Olympics, February 26, 2008. These articles are addressed in Chapter 3.2, Current Motivations for Individual Giving in the U.S. and England.

The information researched proved invaluable to the formation of this study. The research both validated and contradicted various assumptions that were made based on hear-say, marginal knowledge and varying opinions about individual giving, funding and philanthropy in the arts in both countries. The review and subsequent research provides a positive foundation for building awareness and developing an 13

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

understanding of the niceties associated with individual giving in the United States, for the benefit of the chosen English arts organization.

Chapter 2- Methodology

My methodology consisted of desk research, interviews and books and news articles written about individual giving, fundraising/development and philanthropy. Though all of the information is useful and easily accessible, these sources supply little indepth information about of individual giving and the donor/organization connection. The material gathered from interviews on individual giving is important because it supports what is written about the motivations for individual giving‟s use in the U.S. and defines elements that hinder its application in England; it does not sentimentalize individual giving or the connection between the donor and the individual. The information obtained about individual giving is rather the less-formal, more personal extension of available strategic processes.

2.1 Books and Reports

I determined near the start of the research that understanding individual giving by today‟s standards required providing an historical context for the practice in both countries. That research provided the impetus for further investigation of an assortment of factors that currently motivate individual giving, such as tax incentives. Consequently, deterrents to individual giving surfaced as a result of pinpointing modern motivations. Chapters 3.1-3.2.a are devoted to this information which proved helpful for comprehending the information presented by the participating fundraising individual and the model designed for the designated English arts organization.

2.1.a Research Questions

In the course of reading literature and reports on individual giving, several research questions or „issues‟ related to the topic required attention for presenting as complete an analysis as possible.

14

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Firstly, English arts organizations and personal opinions about individual giving can be attributed to negative attitudes the English have about philanthropy. Second, arts organizations and individuals rely on myths to educate and inform how they practice individual giving and fundraising. Third, is an ideology akin to, „If it ain‟t broke, don‟t fix it.‟ that is informed by social conditioning predicated on participation in a total welfare state structure. And finally, there is the „light at the end of the tunnel‟ syndrome, a syndrome I constructed to explain the way English arts organizations approach fundraising practices.

I determined that establishing the realities of these issues lends greater understanding to the America approach to individual giving and the reasons for its infrequent use in England. Further review is given to these research questions in Chapter 3.3, Deterrents to Individual Giving in England.

2.2 Interviews

First, it was necessary to determine an organization that would benefit from the information about individual giving. Several factors were used to evaluate the English organization‟s applicability as the case study; those factors include: 

An organization in need. In deference to the Arts Council England funding cuts in early 2008, it was important to find an English arts organization that had been affected by these actions.



An organization willing to participate. It was determined best to find an organization responding to the ACE funding cuts by addressing the organization‟s immediate needs and making necessary appeals as directed by ACE for reconsideration of funding allocations. The organization would be open to objective scrutiny, questions regarding their current fundraising practices and willing to part with information about ACE‟s reasons for cutting their funding.



An organization willing to explore. Determinations were made to locate an organization that was willing to explore the next steps in fundraising, i.e.

15

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

individual giving. Several organizations approached were either not able or willing to cooperate fully; London Bubble was the rare, wonderful exception.

Standard individual giving practices in the U.S. are not exclusive, only the undisclosed information regarding the relationships is. Therefore, it was not necessary to approach only those organizations that bare the closest resemblance to the London Bubble for the appropriate information. Several arts organizations across different artistic disciplines in the U.S. were asked to provide information about individual giving practices and the nature of their relationships with donors. Yet, out of ten organizations approached, only one provided information. Based on a fundamental knowledge of fundraising in the United States, several conclusions regarding the lack of willing participants were inferred1: 

U.S. arts organizations are reticent to share how they approach donors for individual contributions, primarily because organizations in a given area, city or region of the country access the same or similar catchments.



The relationship between the donor and the organization is predicated on either a tacit understanding or declaration that donor information remains anonymous; it is not shared with individuals outside the organization or in some cases, with people in the organization not directly involved in development.



The people approached for information in development departments did not review the questions sufficiently to determine that no sensitive information, for instance donor names, was requested.

 

Some organizations observe a standard practice not to reply to any inquiries outside the organization. Though great care was given to approach the appropriate people in each organization, there is the possibility that the information was addressed to the wrong person, or jobs and duties switched hands.

The organizations were all approached via email about participation in the study. Quite fortuitously, phone and in-person interviews were conducted for gathering the
1

Please note-the following assumptions are purely hypothetical and based on my own experience in arts administration in the States.

16

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

appropriate information. The necessary materials gathered were obtained by way of specific lists of questions, however by the time of each interview, the study had evolved; not every question provided was necessary.2

Holly Oliver is the Manager for Individual Giving in the Development Department of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The Kennedy Center (2008) is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit multidisciplinary arts organization and the closest thing to an arm‟s length, government-directed arts organization as is allowable in the U.S. The task of the Center‟s Development department is to raise necessary funds for all the Center‟s artistic, educational and operational activities.3 Holly answered numerous questions and discussed her views on individual giving as it exists in the U.S. She offered relevant examples taken from her work in individual giving and undocumented, honest material related to the individual donor/organization relationship.

Holly Oliver completed a phone interview on June 27, 2008. She responded to numerous questions, including:

1-

What has been the hardest obstacle to overcome personally and professionally, as an individual giving fundraiser?

2-

Where do you draw the line between the personal and professional aspects of the job as an individual giving fundraiser? When do you give up? When you do say, „This person, no matter how personable I am, how knowledgeable about the organization and the programs they are interested in I am, how forthright and honest I am, is not willing to give to our organization. I have to move on.‟

3-

The responses to these and other questions Ms. Oliver answered are reviewed in Chapters 3.4.a and 4 as well.
2

See Appendices A and B for the full list of questions provided to the U.S./English arts organizations and individuals. 3 When discussing funding, Ms. Oliver pointed out that the U.S. Federal Government is financially responsible for the Kennedy Center building and surrounding ground‟s physical maintenance, restoration and security, as befitting it‟s status as a national memorial. Any and all allocations of money from the Federal government to the Kennedy Center come via successful application of grants, as is expected of all arts organizations seeking U.S. federal funding. (Oliver, 2008)

17

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

The London Bubble Theatre Company is a small, community arts-based company that has a strong commitment to developing community awareness through theatre, theatre and other arts education and programming. For 35 years, the London Bubble has held fast to a very simple vision: „That every Londoner has access to creating, participating in, enjoying theatre-to communicate, connect and inspire.‟(London Bubble, 2008) The company achieves this through a very strong and direct mission that includes,
„(…) providing artistic direction, skills, environment and resources to create inspirational, inclusive, involving theatre, which shares stories that animate the spaces of the city and the spirits of its citizens.‟ (London Bubble, http://www.londonbubble.org.uk/mission, Accessed May 25, 2008)

Ms. Ogra is the Producer for the Bubble. However, following the cuts from ACE, Ms. Ogra assumed countless other responsibilities, including researching and determining possible, alternative avenues for generating funding. (Ogra, 2008) Shipra invited me for an in-person interview at the Bubble; during the interview, she was very candid, providing her own insights about philanthropy in the arts, as well as her own educational and experiential shortcomings in individual giving. The information requested of she and the London Bubble included: What do you think of when you think of the phrase „individual giving‟? Does London Bubble currently (in past) practice fundraising in any way, shape or form? (…) For instance, if the Bubble does practice any fundraising, what activities are employed by the company? 3What immediate actions, i.e. redundancies, cuts to programming, etc did the organization take when it was determined that ACE funding would definitely be cut? Analysis of Shipra‟s responses helped the development of the individual giving model created to suit the London Bubble., explored in detail in several chapters towards the end of the study.

12-

Shipra Ogra and Holly Oliver do not have similar jobs. The London Bubble and the Kennedy Center are not similar in terms of size and scales on all level of

18

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

organizational capacity. Yet, these people and the organizations are deeply committed to the arts they provide, for the communities they serve. This study does not make comparisons between the two organizations or the people that provided information. What was critical to this study was obtaining and assessing the information Holly Oliver presented relating to individual giving for use constructing the model for the Bubble, based on the information offered by Shipra Ogra.

Chapter 2.3 Desk Research

My desk research inspired this study of individual giving. I scan web-subscription newspapers each morning. I also read and save articles that are part of collectives specifically chosen each day as on the website ArtsJournal.com. As I became more engrossed in this topic I discovered through these sources that on both sides of the Atlantic, journalists were reporting on major gifts and in-kind contributions, the successes and failures of various arts organizations sustaining and properly managing their finances and policy initiatives and programs that supported more individual and corporate contributions. These articles contained a personal element that was lacking in the academic writings I was encouraged to read; the stories featured people, specific organizations and situations related to philanthropy in the arts.

As of the writing of this paper, one article reports intentions the English government has to push more individual giving in the arts; another advocates more private contributions and offers one large-scale suggestion for making this discipline popular in the country. These government plans however, contradict the essence of U.S. individual giving that is explored in this study. The newer articles are explored in Chapter 4.

19

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Chapter 3-Research

3.1 Philanthropy: A Very Brief Start
‘Basic philanthropic institutions-trusts and foundations, charity law, membership and subscription mechanisms have grown from the same (English) roots. And yet why and how they (the U.S. and England) practice giving, is as we have seen, in many ways quite different.’ (Wright, 2002:25)

A marked difference in current fundraising methods between each country is the employment of individual giving practices. But what historical ideologies informed the development of this particular form of philanthropy? Information from a diverse assortment of scholarly writings puts philanthropy into proper historical context; a review of this material provided a better understanding of why this avenue of fundraising is pursued in each country and lent credibility to the more intricate details of U.S. individual giving that were acquired for this study.

3.1. a-U.S.-Avoiding Triviality and Inadequacies of the Federal Government

It is well understood that cultural and performing arts are not entitlements the U.S. federal government takes primary responsibility in providing its citizens. U.S. organizations do not enjoy the same kind of fiduciary assurances from government as English arts organizations do. Therefore arts organizations must build strong fundraising platforms and endless strategies for their long-term sustainability.
„Until the twentieth century, the United States government possessed no official arts policy. This stand was rooted deep in the nation‟s history, stemming from religious and social traditions in early American culture. (…) Puritan New Englanders feared that indulging in the arts would distract colonists from industrious pursuits and foster idle ones instead.‟ (Binkiewicz, 2004:12)

According to Binkiewicz, this attitude pervaded the country for several centuries. American citizen‟s resistance to the arts was reinforced by early politicians when formal government was being established. These men wanted to avoid the formation of „classes‟ and a hierarchical society. They achieved this in part by labelling the arts as trivial and diverted Federal monies away from supporting it. „ (…) many in Congress believed that federal support for the arts would result either in the elitist

20

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

control of artistic freedom that marred European art patronage or the encouragement of frivolous luxury.‟ (Binkiewicz, 2004: 12) During mid-1800, Andrew Jackson served as president and his „antielitist rhetoric widened the gap between “cultured” society and the democratic masses.‟ (Binkiewicz, 2004:12) The government‟s staunch efforts to establish a completely democratic society effectively paved the way for American citizens to assume responsibility for funding the arts, cultural and related community-endeavours in the country. A result of this responsibility was the development of the elitist and working classes in the U.S. In Why Rich People Give, Theresa Lloyd explores “Philanthropy as a characteristic of the elite” (2004: 284), in a chapter comparing U.S. to U.K. giving. „The US lacks the aristocratic and sharply defined class distinctions and social traditions which still persist in the UK, (…) Philanthropy becomes a mark of class status that contributes to defining and maintaining the culture and organizational boundaries of elite life.‟ (Lloyd, 2004:284)

A sense of national identity and civic pride in the United States also developed in association with philanthropy and great wealth.
„Put simply, in the United States money is seen as a good thing. Wealth is considered a nearly universal measure of achievement and success. As the dominant indicator of class status in America, wealth is relatively explicitly discussed and visibly displayed. (…) Philanthropy in particular has been a way to demonstrate both social leadership and significant personal wealth, and as such has often been used as a vehicle for entrance into elite circles.‟ (Wright, 2000:15)

Concurrently, an almost natural suspicion of government‟s involvement in the arts beyond advocacy pervades the collective American consciousness. This is a result of the government‟s negation of the arts during the country‟s formative years and provides further motivation for U.S. individual giving. Theresa Lloyd interviewed Americans who make large-scale contributions to the non-profit sector in both the U.S. and U.K. (2004, 281) One interviewee offered the following: „There was also scepticism about the ability of (U.S.) government to provide an effective substitute for private philanthropy.‟ Linked to that is the question of influence or even control. „If the government took over, then unless I become a (government) legislator, how can I

21

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

have a say?” And there was a fear about an “official line”, “This country is about freedom of choice.‟ (Lloyd, 2007: 282)

That freedom of choice, along with civic pride, national identity and a long-standing trepidation of the government‟s intervention and control are fundamental reasons why individual giving is so important for the arts and other cultural endeavours synonymous with creativity in the country.

3.1.b-England-Strategic Beginnings Give Birth to a State of Reticence

By contrast, in England there is a system for allocation of funds via Arts Council England, local authorities and other semi-government bodies.
‘One of the oldest surviving charities in England is Week’s Charity, an organization originally set up in the fifteenth century to provide faggots (bundles of sticks) for burning heretics, an activity supported by the government of the day.’ (Jay and Sargeant, 2004: 4)

Given this information and a somewhat slower awakening to the benefits of individual giving in the country, one has to wonder if this bit of history pervades the minds of English citizens today.

Philanthropy effectively started in Tudor England, when government sought to extinguish as much delinquent behaviour as possible while maintaining civic order. (Jay and Sargeant, 2004: 4) Individual giving, i.e. „giving alms to the poor‟ were controlled; those physically incapacitated received monetary or other forms of charity without recourse from the government. „The able-bodied poor were to be encouraged to take responsibility for the amelioration of their own condition. (…) All legitimate beggars were licensed and private persons were forbidden to give to anyone not in possession of such a document.‟ (Jay and Sargeant, 2004:4)

Beyond this private giving, individuals contributed to numerous causes covering a wide spectrum; it was not until1601 this act of giving was formalized by the government‟s recognition of charities. The Elizabethan Charitable Uses Act preamble institutionalized charities; government gained control of charitable organizations,

22

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

monitoring activities and the proper allocation of funds contributed by patrons so that monies would not be used ineffectively or improperly. (Jay and Sargeant, 2004:4)

Governmental „control‟, established many centuries ago remains in effect today. A primary example of public funding starts with an oversimplified description: every three years following release of the Comprehensive Spending Review, money is allocated to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport4. The DCMS then distributes money to ACE from the larger state allocation; in turn, ACE disburses money to each organization that has made successful grant application every three years5. (Arts Council England, http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/gfta2006_about.php, Accessed June 8, 2008) This method of funding, a response to the first comprehensive welfare state system6, is one thing that has potentially diminished the appeal of individual giving in the country. Another factor, in stark contrast to the U.S., is the idea and enjoyment of wealth and giving. „I find Britain‟s secrecy and shame over money a block to philanthropy (…) I also think that there are a lot of people for whom it is not part of their personal or national culture to give away money.‟ (Lloyd, 2004: 286). While it was determined in the U.S. wealth is celebrated, „Money is not clearly such a good thing in the UK. Financial success is viewed by some with admiration, by others with suspicion; they see it as unseemly, and very likely a result of the exploitation of others.‟ (Wright, 2002:16)

Another mentality directly associated with marginalizing wealth and advocating support of the arts via public subsidy permeates the rhetoric of arts managers in various disciplines. With consistent regularity, administrators and managers I came in

4

The Comprehensive Spending Review is, „a long-term and fundamental review of government expenditure.‟ The most recent, (…) will cover departmental allocations for 2008-09, 2009-10, 201011.‟ (HM Treasury, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spend_index.cfm Accessed July 5, 2008) 5 ACE also receives funding to support Grants for the Arts from the National Lottery. (Arts Council England, http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/gfta2006_about.php, Accessed June 8, 2008) 6 Welfare State- The political system under which the state (rather than the individual or the private sector) has responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, providing a guaranteed minimum standard of life, and insurance against the hazards of poverty, illness, and social deprivation.(tiscali.reference, http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0028820.html, Accessed July 8, 2008)

23

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

contact with during my studies conveyed an attitude of complacency. When asked, one administrator said about their organization‟s fund-raising practices, „Oh, we have ACE funding. We manage our subsidy well so we don‟t concern ourselves too much with other fundraising practices.‟ (Anonymous, 20087) This does not reflect the opinion of every arts administrator or organization in the country. However, the study provides evidence that London Bubble‟s exploration of individual giving and other fundraising practices is something the theatre started urgently exploring as a result of the ACE funding cuts this year.

The essence of philanthropy, nay, individual giving began in both countries because of either suspicion, wanting or control. Suspicion, wanting and control do not equate with current ideas, notions or definitions of individual giving. Yet as the study moves forward, the hidden aspects of individual giving revealed are quite transparent, mirroring the transparency of earlier philanthropic endeavours and motivations.

3.2 Current Motivations for Individual Giving in the U.S. and England

An objective look at practices today requires a good definition of individual giving. The simplest definition is available at the LabforCulture website; individual giving is defined as, „Donations to "good causes" as a matter of personal choice by individual citizens.‟ (LabforCulture, http://www.labforculture.org/en/Funding/Glossary, accessed July 7, 2008)

Donations by individuals to U.S. arts organizations who contribute privately or through friends schemes take a tax deduction for their gift. The larger the private contributions, or ascension to higher tier in friends and membership schemes, the greater the tax deduction. This kind of tax incentive for the individual offers added assurance for organizations; the organization relies on higher rate tax incentives as leverage for requesting larger contributions over time. The only major difference between U.S. individuals who contribute privately and those who join a friends or members scheme is that people who make private contributions outside the planned

7

Direct quote taken from a Producer of an English arts organization during a lecture to City University Culture, Policy and Management students in February 2008.

24

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

individual giving schemes are not ordinarily in receipt of benefits from the organization. (Lloyd, 2004:289) In England, „Cash donations from individuals are treated through a system called Gift Aid.‟ (Arts and Business, http://www.aandb.org.uk/render.aspx?siteID=5&navIDs=1066,1217,1305, Accessed May 26, 2008) Recipients of U.K. taxpayer‟s cash donations can claim the tax on that donation. This increases the value of the donation to the organization by up to 28%. Arts and Business helps donors and organizations determine whether a gift qualifies under the Gift Aid scheme via the „relevant value test.‟ Benefits are financially capped, based on the amount of the gift because benefits exceeding the final specified amount are considered trading, „buying a series of benefits rather than making a donation.‟ (Arts and Business, http://www.aandb.org.uk/render.aspx?siteID=5&navIDs=1066,1217,1305, Accessed May 26, 2008) The individual does not normally receive additional tax incentive for contributions made, inciting another stop-gap to individual contributions; because individuals can choose to file the contribution under the Gift Aid scheme, the organization receives more money without placing greater responsibility on the individual, effectively preventing larger, long-term contributions and diminishing the need for individual giving or similar fundraising schemes.

It is a forgone conclusion that individual giving is a fundraising method used in the States. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport recently stated that private contributions are a regular part of the funding mix in England as well.
„The arts in England are funded through a wide variety of sources, which include earned income, Government subsidy, private donations and business sponsorship. Through this mixed economy, England occupies the middle ground between heavy dependence on the State - as in European countries such as France and Germany - and almost entire reliance on private investment, as in the USA. Funding the arts in this way can prove highly beneficial to artists and arts organisations as it reduces the risks that can arise from reliance on a single funding source, and ensures that they have greater artistic freedom and financial flexibility.‟ (DCMS, www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/GuidetoArtsFundinginEngland.pdf, Accessed June 15, 2008)

In Major Gift Philanthropy-Individual Giving to the Arts, Jay, Lee and Sargeant (2002) contradict the DCMS. „It appears from the literature (reviewed) that effective

25

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

ongoing fundraising from individuals for the arts in the UK is still comparatively scarce.(…) Relatively few UK charities currently undertake major giving programmes though the numbers are growing.‟ (2002: 27) This study was published six years ago. Although interest in individual giving in England has gained momentum since then, evidence from the Bubble interview regards that interest as a response to funding cuts and monies re-distributed to other endeavours and programs in the country, rather than a general interest in building standard, long-term fundraising practices.

The information in recent newspaper articles also challenges the DCMS statement. One article posted by the BBC in February of this year was Olympics 440m ‘drain on culture’. (BBC (Online) News Channel. Monday, February 25, 2008). In the article London Assembly Chairman Dee Doocey was quoted, having said that „We are not denying that the capital will reap huge benefits as the host city of the 2012 games. However our investigation shows that on the ground opportunities Londoners were promised are at risk because the funding diversion effectively ham-strings the organizations needed to deliver them.‟ (BBC (Online) News Channel. Monday, February 25, 2008). The possibility of even more money diverted to the games is stronger motivation for arts organizations to explore individual giving.

A more recent article featured in the Guardian in May reported on Sir Brian McMaster‟s report for the DCMS, Supporting Excellence in the Arts. According to the article, the report explains the role excellence plays in the arts. It gives reasons for the necessity of excellence and offers a point plan for publicly-funded arts organizations to assess themselves more critically rather than having „faceless bureaucrats‟ assess them, particularly when funding is being determined. (Brown, 2008) The report was the government‟s response to the backlash ACE received following the funding cuts to arts organizations.

Self-assessment is important for every arts organization, especially when companies are applying for grants and determining their capacity for new artistic and administrative programs. As well, individuals who choose to support one organization also do so by assessing the work of the organization. An organization‟s level of excellence can be measured, not only by self-assessment and peer review, but by how many individuals are willing to devote time and money to that organization. 26

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Regardless of current tax breaks, benefits and incentives, past and future funding cuts, one reason individuals give, not discussed in either of the primary sources reviewed, is that they appreciate the work that the organization produces. Lloyd calls this „Belief in the Cause.‟ (2004:78) „(…) a passion for a specific cause is inseparable from motivation; the enthusiasm underpins and is reinforced by the affinity for and relationship with the individual organizations which focus on the subjects of concern to the donor.‟ (Lloyd, 2004:78)

The information Holly Oliver provided during her interview further corroborates Lloyd‟s assessment of individual‟s beliefs and motivations for giving.

3.2.a Non-Profit Individual Giving Percentages Arts and Business and Giving USA offer the most recent individual giving percentages for the U.S. and the U.K, rather than the U.S. and England. Also, the percentages available represent giving for several sectors, not the arts exclusively. However, the information does offer an alternate look at giving as it currently stands, perhaps providing a view for where it is headed in the future in those countries.

Ms. Sharon Bond, Senior PR Manager of Giving USA responded to inquiries about percentages for individual giving to the arts, stating that „We don‟t break out arts separately from arts/culture/humanities, (…)‟. (Bond, 2008) According to Sharon Bond‟s press release for the GivingUSA annual report 2007, „Arts, culture and humanities giving reached an estimated $12.51 billion in 2006.‟8 This represented the highest growth rate for giving in 2006, a change of 9.9 percent from the previous year. (Bond, 2008)

In contrast, individual giving percentages in the arts for the UK were listed in Private Investment in the Cultural Sector Survey, 2006-07. (Arts and Business, http://www.aandb.org.uk/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,150,1125, Accessed June 26, 2008). This survey reported that total individual giving was „up by 10.8% in 05/06 to 298 million, with individual contributions totalling 67.5 million of the total sum of
8

„This new estimate is based on revised historical data from the IRS Forms 990. (Bond, 2008)

27

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

giving. At the time of the study, percentages for individual contributions to the arts in the United States were not available.

3.3 Deterrents to Individual Giving in England

Several research questions were determined necessary to address for understanding the English reticence towards individual giving. Finding suitable answers to these topics was important for establishing the approaches of U.S. individual giving that would serve as the model for the London Bubble.

In England, negative opinions about individual giving are connected to the understanding of philanthropy. „In many circles in modern Britain, philanthropy is the form of giving that „dare not speak its name. (…) In the UK „charity‟ and „charitable giving‟ are the preferred terms; though not entirely free of baggage, they are seen as more modern, egalitarian and respectful.‟ (Wright, 2007:7) The word charity „is a comparatively positive act.‟ (2007:7) and associated more closely with what is considered true altruism because traditionally, there are no benefits or incentives attached to the act. Philanthropy is connected in the English mind with „self-interested purposes‟ and „It is perceived as an idea whose time came, was proved unworkable and went-to be replaced by a universal, fair and more efficient welfare state.‟ (Wright, 2007:7). One premature conclusion is that individuals in England who subscribe to these beliefs about philanthropy unconsciously reject the benefits of individual giving because they are too proud and find it beneath them to discuss money; they are unable to ask for money, which is vital to U.S. individual giving practices.

Another topic that surfaced during the research was myths people subscribe to that prohibit effective individual giving and fundraising practices. In the NonProfit Times this May, a list of nine myths associated with „Fundraising Diversification‟ was reported, with recommendations and suggestions for how these myths are avoidable. The myths were actually a list of common mistakes organizations and individuals make when exploring or managing their fundraising activities. The myths included believing that the responsibilities and duties associated with fundraising is a job any person in the organization can easily add to their current

28

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

work load, misconceptions that the money will come because the surrounding community and constituents know the organization well, a special fundraising event will solve money problems; also, assuming one person or several people will give to your organization because they give to others and relying on a direct mail or e-mail campaign as the primary (and only) method for attracting donors9. (Burton, 2008)

Another early conclusion that can be drawn is that English arts organizations and individuals allow one or more of these myths to educate them about fundraising practices.

A third issue that potentially prohibits the use of individual giving practices is reliance on a broad welfare state system, in place since mid-1940. „A corollary of the belief in the importance of the welfare state is the view that it is the task of the government to pay for certain things out of taxes.‟ (Lloyd, 2004:289)

Connected to this is an idea that permeates the English psyche; government and other public funding bodies will reduce the amount they allocate by the exact amount organizations secure through other fundraising methods, such as private contributions. (Lloyd, 2004:226)

At the same time there are contradictory attitudes that philanthropy has great benefit for connecting individuals and communities with organizations. „We need to find a way to encourage those with money as seeing themselves as partners in creating a better society. (Lloyd, 2004:285) Moreover, public money covers necessities and private money elevates those necessities to something much better. (Lloyd, 2004:22)

As tax structures change to suit a constantly fluctuating economy and new initiatives the government wishes to incentivize through deductions are implemented, this mentality towards giving may be able to change. For instance, the „shadow culture secretary‟, Jeremy Hunt outlined the Conservative party‟s new arts policy plan that will promote, „an American-style culture of philanthropy for the arts in Britain.‟ (Higgins, 2008)

9

See Appendix C for the full list of myths and coinciding recommendations.

29

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Finally, there is the „light at the end of the tunnel‟ syndrome; English arts organizations have unrealistic expectations of themselves and the amount of work it takes to fundraise successfully. They acquire tunnel vision, recognizing the successful results of various fundraising methods but they do not fully comprehend the bigger picture. This bigger picture includes the organization‟s capacity, their own knowledge about various practices, the entire organization‟s attitudes about fundraising and a deeper understanding of the responsibility involved in maintaining a two-way communication between the donor and the organization.

Information from the Bubble interview and observations made during subsequent visits uncovered just how many of these elements affect the organization. These topics and their relevancy to the Bubble are explored further in Conclusions and Further Recommendations.

3.4 Case Study Interviews 3.4.a ‘Suck It Up’-U.S. Individual Giving-Holly Oliver/The Kennedy Center

The information Holly Oliver provided supports the research established in the study about the American culture of giving. Examples she offered for this study were from work experience at the KC however she was not speaking on behalf of the Center; rather from her own experiences as a fundraiser in American arts organizations.

I started by asking Holly what she believes is the hardest obstacle to overcome, both personally and professionally as a fundraiser in individual giving. „In the beginning, asking someone is the hardest. In my mind it is the most difficult thing to overcome and I just have to keep saying to myself that I am a professional; no matter what my personal feelings are, this is what I do for a living. The bottom line is I ask people for money.‟ (Oliver, 2008)

She went on when prompted, to discuss whether she still struggles with anything related to the job. I provided her with examples, i.e. whether it was harder to ask people over the phone or in person for money. Holly said she still struggles all the 30

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

time with asking no matter how she is going about it because each person is different and appreciates and wants a different approach. „If I didn‟t like this work, I wouldn‟t be doing it and even though it is hard, ultimately, I just have to suck it up.‟ (Oliver, 2008)

About finding prospects for contributions, I questioned whether current contributors are ever asked to provide names of potential prospects that can be approached by the organization. Holly (2008) provided an example from the Kennedy Center that makes „the ask‟, which is the vital part of her work, a bit easier. „We have various levels of membership at the Kennedy Center because we are such a large organization and we want people at all economic levels to feel they can give and be a part of the organization in this capacity. Giving is not exclusively for the super wealthy. Aside from the annual Members tier starting at $65, we have the Circles Tier. This includes The Circles Board, forty members who provide mid-level gifts10 to the Center. This board meets three times a year to discuss new programs at the Kennedy Center that might provide „a draw‟11 for new members; the Board also discusses potential prospects and ways those people can be approached. Members of the Development Department at the Kennedy Center have a standard letter which board members then use to approach potential patrons; conversely the board members will, with approval from the Center, draft their own letters to send out to people. (Oliver, 2008)

The next step in the process is taken over by the Center; Development staff for individual giving makes phone calls to potential patrons to discuss the Center and their possible financial involvement; a second direct mail letter from the Center follows a week after the first phone call is made to the prospect. Holly said that this process relieves the board member of complete responsibility; the Center takes the responsibility of being the aggressor during the process. (Oliver, 2008)

10

The Circles level in the Kennedy Center individual giving tier constitutes gifts ranging between $1,200 and $29,999 USD. (The Kennedy Center www.kennedy-center.org/support/membership, Accessed July 5, 2008) 11 Part of prospect research for American development departments is determining what special programs, productions or events the organization presents are important to the potential donor; the pitch to donors often begins with that „draw‟ i.e. specific program the donor finds important and therefore is willing to lend support to the organization.

31

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

„I consider their time and the suggestions and help the Board members offer as added contribution. They are volunteering, in a way.‟ In exchange for both financial and practical support, Holly stated that these Board members are invited to attend smaller events hosted exclusively for them by the Center; additionally they receive other benefits and incentives befitting their level of contribution in the Circles tier12.(Oliver, 2008)

I was most interested to know how Holly approaches people and where she draws the line between what she learns about donors on a personal level and a professional level. „I deal with so many people at both the Members level and the Circles level‟; it is hard for me to have a more personal, one-on-on relationship with any of the Circles and Member level donors. At the Circles tier, we currently have approximately 3,000 donors ranging the various financial levels offered in that scheme and there are even more at the lower Members tier. As a professional fundraiser, I do what I can to remember their name, or at least their face so that I recognize them again, can make a connection and hopefully approach them about upgrading their membership later. On a personal level, I try to always be a good, earnest listener and remember why they want to give. But even as I build more personal associations, it all comes back to the work. I have to try and get those people to come back and hopefully donate more. If we have had them as a member between one and three years, we want them to think about giving more, so I make sure that I always know what is going on at the Center, I remember the mission and vision and I be as sincere and honest in my „ask‟ as possible. (Oliver, 2008) The last and one of the most important questions I asked Holly was, “When do you give up? When do you say to yourself, „I cannot speak to this person any longer, they do not want to give and I need to move on.” Holly‟s answer reflected what I personally consider real American determination and spirit. „I don‟t give up. I don‟t think that I won‟t ever speak to that person again. I take them off my active prospect list for a few months and make appropriate notes about how I approached them, what did and didn‟t work. After a while, I move them back on to the active list and try again.‟ (Oliver, 2008)
12

See www.kennedy-center.org/support/membership for more information about incentives and benefits.

32

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Holly said that there are many unknown factors that prohibit a person giving. „There are always things going on in someone‟s personal life that I won‟t ever know about. No matter what my research uncovers that might make my pitch more personalized for them, I could have just caught them at a bad time that day, that week and I say to myself that I will hook them next time. As often as I can, I do try and make a personal connection, but development (fundraising) is still part of the business of non-profit arts and I have to be resilient if I want to be successful in my work.‟ (Oliver, 2008) 3.4.b One Hand Can’t Clap-Shipra Ogra/London Bubble

Samuel Petherbridge is a teenage volunteer and participant of various activities at the London Bubble. When I asked him what he thought about the cuts he said, „The Bubble is not just a place, it is my home, ‟and followed it with his hopes that the Bubble would be able to manage the current crisis. (Petherbridge, 2008)

I met Samuel and several other teenage volunteers during the time I volunteered at the Bubble to get a look at some of the things the organization was doing to address the recent crisis.

The recent crisis was the decision ACE made to cut all funding from the Bubble as of April 1, 2008. The Bubble was scheduled to receive £430,000 from ACE each year for the next three years. Shipra Ogra, the Bubble‟s producer revealed that after a review of the Bubble‟s theatrical offerings, ACE decided the theatre work the Bubble produced did not merit any more funding. The Bubble immediately began making the appropriate appeals, and following submission of the required paperwork, ACE provided the Bubble with a one-off transitional disbursement of £130,000. „ACE appreciated our commitment to the community work, education initiatives and programs we already had and they did not want us to have to give that up as well.‟ (Ogra, 2008)

Prior to my volunteer stint, I met with Shipra Ogra for an in-person interview at the London Bubble offices in late May. Shipra was very candid and honest about where the Bubble currently stands as an organization. What she offered about her recent 33

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

experiences at the Bubble provides examples of almost every aspect of the research conducted on the reticence of giving in today‟s English arts organizations. I started by asking Shipra what she thinks individual giving means. ‟Individual giving is a person who wants to support the Bubble, financially, spiritually and emotionally. The person who makes a commitment to give must understand the way we intend to connect and make theatre accessible to everyone. They would need to understand how the Bubble works because the relationship between they and us is the most important thing, from beginning to end.‟ (Ogra, 2008)

According to Shipra, the Bubble does not have a fundraising manager. Shipra was managing the paperwork for local authority and ACE grants, as well as a grant from the Jack Petchy Foundation. When I asked about the organization‟s interest in individual giving and schemes Shipra said that no one, herself included, was familiar with any fundraising techniques. „We are starting to think about a friend‟s scheme but we don‟t know if we can sustain it. It (fundraising) has been on the cards for a while but it became urgent after we realized that we could not depend on one stream of funding anymore. However, it is still in a very exploratory, nascent stage.‟ (Ogra, 2008) She said that although the Bubble had attempted corporate sponsorships and partnerships with local businesses in the past, there has been little success. „In-kind gifts are and have been the most successful individual giving methods for the Bubble.‟ (Ogra, 2008)

Although the Bubble had a good reserve built up, Shipra revealed the money was quickly depleted. Following the cuts, „immediate actions were redundancies because we simply couldn‟t afford to pay the salaries.‟(Ogra, 2008) The redundancy pay-outs were the most critical action that the Bubble took to avoid program disruption. „No programme was cancelled; at least nothing that has been planned for has been cancelled. The summer show was not planned for this year because we were involved with the whole „Save the Bubble‟ campaign from November onwards.‟(Ogra, 2008) Shipra also said the work the Bubble does in schools as well as the summer participatory project, that would serve as this year‟s summer show, were still running as planned and on schedule despite, massive staff cuts and less money.

34

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

I delved a bit further, hoping to discover that perhaps the Bubble was not as dependent on only one major income stream. Shipra stated all of their foundation grants were small one-off applications for restricted funding that went to the Bubble‟s education programs, classes and related community initiatives. The Bubble also has no strategic volunteer program, never pursued corporate underwriting or hosted any fundraising events; they have not even employed the use of a wish list (Ogra, 2008), traditionally used to generate in-kind gifts and donations from the community, participants in organizational programs and theatre patrons.

Despite the problems the Bubble recently faced, the company still has spirit and drive. That tenacity is extraordinarily useful for implementing and managing individual giving practices. While volunteering, I came in direct contact with that tenacity, as the Bubble continues managing the current financial situation. I helped clear rooms of old files and shelving units to make space available to several performing arts companies that rented out the Bubble rehearsal and class rooms for their own use. I helped clean and dust dozens of production props and other useful items, and photographed them all to be sold on Ebay in an effort to jump start e-commerce initiatives for the company; I also spent time researching corporations that are supporters of the arts in local communities, in order to determine potential sponsors.

The Bubble has not been deterred by the ACE funding cuts. They remain optimistic about the future; although there are major organizational differences between the Bubble and the KC, many of the very simple actions Holly shared, she uses out of practice and habit. They are important elements of individual giving the Bubble can explore and apply to their own distinct practices to continue as a successful community-based theatre company in Southwest London. Taking Holly‟s information about individual giving and Shipra‟s information about the Bubble‟s current capacity, the model provides the Bubble sustainable, cost-effective individual giving options.

35

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Chapter 4-Conclusion

The research undertaken in this study offers a more personal and compelling narrative than the literature reviewed about individual giving. Additionally, a great amount of evidence presented in the study proves that the idea of individual giving in England is important and perhaps imperative for the future of arts organizations. In spite of the need for greater use of these practices, a reticence still exists in the country that will take much more than words to reverse.

From the American perspective, individual giving is a discipline, requiring several elements for it to be successful. One is action i.e. „suck it up‟ and „don‟t give up‟; also required is a legacy of strategic practice born out of necessity and a belief that the willingness of individuals to give is not exclusively predicated on ulterior motivations like showing off, tax incentives and benefits from the organization.

More importantly, successful individual giving as part of a comprehensive fundraising strategy demands constant care and attention. Arts organizations, whether in the U.S., England or elsewhere in the world can realize those things with the right frame of mind, a willingness to be properly educated and by making efforts to determine the individual giving practices that will benefit the organization, potential donors, key stakeholders13 and the greater community at large. During the course of the research and following the interview with Shipra, I came to several conclusions that coincide with the current status of individual giving in England.

First, it may be unclear to English arts organizations and arts professionals that individual giving is not overtly, a public affair. An article recently published in Bloomberg on the state of individual giving in the UK quotes arts managers in England who believe appealing to the rich and rewarding them for their contributions will lessen an organization‟s dependence on public funding. „We need to persuade rich people to give,‟ said V&A Director Mark Jones, `and when they give, they should be suitably celebrated.' (Nayeri, 2008) The article went on, reporting on discussions various managers, fundraisers and organizations were having

13

Stakeholders refer to audiences, board trustees, corporate sponsors and partners, volunteers, etc.

36

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

about publicizing their donor‟s personal information as further incentive for their contributions. „Today's campaigners said they were mulling a national giving day in which all cultural organizations would name donors on their Web sites, and great givers would talk about why they give.‟ (Nayeri, 2008)

Despite information provided about the eagerness and pride Americans display when discussing personal wealth, these particular ideas for „celebrating‟ contributors contradicts the subtle nature of U.S. individual giving. During her interview, Holly Oliver (2008) explained that in the United States, individual contributor‟s information is safeguarded and carefully monitored. She also said, „Any information that a contributor does not want to be made public, such as their name printed in programs under donor lists and anywhere else the organization might habitually publicize their contributions, remains private.‟ When I mentioned the idea of a national giving day to Holly, a sharp intake of breath was followed by, „Oh that is not a good idea. Just because people want to give does not mean they want every organization cold-calling them for donations. That would never work here.‟ (Oliver, 2008) A National Giving Day, while perhaps a nice gesture, will ultimately result in even less motivation and willingness on the part of English citizens to give their time and money.

Another conclusion that I came to is that words are not the answer either. Although it may be reassuring to believe that the government will come to the aid of arts organizations through better tax incentives, arts policies and initiatives, the „culture‟ of giving in England will not change overnight, no matter who is making the overtures. It is evident from the research concerning the history of philanthropy in America it takes two hundred years to cultivate, something Jeremy Hunt and the Conservative Party might not fully comprehend in their quest to support an „American-style culture of philanthropy‟ (Nayeri, 2008) in the UK.

Philanthropy requires action and it has to start somewhere; arts organizations have just as much responsibility as patrons for making this idea a common reality. Organizations cannot take on this responsibility merely because they have lost public funding and are scrambling to find other income generating options. They must thoroughly consider their capacity for adopting individual giving methods. Further,

37

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

the organization must have familiarity with all methods before adopting those that are within the organization‟s manageable confines.

The London Bubble is willing to diversify their fundraising techniques. Yet information provided during the Bubble interview reveals they are currently exploring fundraising methods well out of their short and long-term capability. At the time of the interview, the Bubble had only three full time staff and Shipra made it very clear that no one currently employed is educated enough about fundraising schemes outside the process of filling out grant applications. The financial information addressed previously also suggests they cannot successfully maintain any practices they are actively exploring; when I volunteered for them, Shipra indicated the Bubble had begun exploring fundraising by investigating and approaching corporations that have a history of arts sponsorship. The Bubble concluded that this was the best area to start with because others had success in this area of fundraising. I concluded that staff at the Bubble can see the end results of these particular practices i.e. the „light at the end of the tunnel‟, but they are looking down the wrong one.

38

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

4.2 Further Recommendations

The Bubble has many avenues they should explore that will benefit the development and sustainability of individual giving practices and the entire organization in the future.

One, the Bubble should familiarize itself with resources and materials targeted at the philanthropist instead of the organization. PhilanthropyUK is a non-profit organization that provides referential, statistical, practical information and advice about giving in the UK. The non-profit recently published five tips for individuals to consider when deciding to give that are useful for the Bubble as they research prospects for individual giving (Adebowale, 2008). The tips are presented in Appendix D.

Arts and Business offers practical advice about fundraising that the Bubble can easily access as they begin to educate themselves about individual giving practices. Appendix D.2 offers their list of fundraising tips for arts organizations.

Although sections of the literature reviewed for this study provide standard lists and strategies for individual giving, Don’t Just Applaud-Send Money!, is a much more fun and memorable book of successful strategies for funding and marketing the arts. The reader enjoys learning about actual practices that organizations successfully develop and implement.14 (Reiss, 1995)

Additionally, I drafted a memo during the time I volunteered, outlining search methods and steps to create a proper Excel file for categorizing prospect information for the Bubble‟s temporary intern and staff to continue corporate research. I attached a list of web sources that the Bubble could pay to access or include information about the company. In light of recent research, this activity should not have been

14

Alan Reiss compiled a book of case studies of arts organizations in the United States, providing a short, light narrative of specific methods the organization used, breaking each story into three pointsChallenge, Plan and Result.

39

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

encouraged. Since then, I have made less costly and more manageable fundraising suggestions for the Bubble to explore.15

Ultimately, there is more to do with individual giving and with fundraising in general than the Bubble and other English arts organizations may imagine. Prevailing myths, assumptions and personal attitudes associated with U.S. and English giving the Bubble should be aware of when determining what individual practices they are going to employ. The Bubble must then dispel those opinions and accept major responsibility in order to achieve success in individual giving. Further, fully appreciating individual giving for its greater potential means the Bubble should explore all available resources, both undocumented and documented, before deciding what is right for them. Finally, if the Bubble is at least one organization willing to „suck it up‟, they may help initiate a new culture of giving that is not American, but rather one that is vitally English, for the successful preservation of the arts in the country.

15

See Appendix F for the memo, list of web resources and subsequent email correspondence related to individual giving advice I made to the Bubble.

40

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Appendix C- Nine Myths Of Fundraising Diversification This article is from NPT Instant Fundraising, a publication of The NonProfit Times May 22, 2008 By: Heather M. Burton (http://www.nptimes.com/instantfund/08May/IF-080522-1.html, Accessed May 26, 2008)

Reliance on a single source of funding can be a dangerous position for nonprofits. It jeopardizes the health of the organization when grant funding gets cut, individual gifts are scaled back, or campaigns fail to hit goal. As the economy continues to soften, and we enter the final months of the presidential campaign, organizations across the nation are feeling the pinch. Nonprofits with diversified funding sources might move through the softening economy breathing a little easier than most. The good news is those not in that category can still explore new avenues to help diversify their "funding portfolios." However, don't let your panic -- or someone else's -- control how to begin to expand your funding. Diversification is simple in theory, and very well intentioned, but can falter in execution or unrealistic expectations. Beware of these nine myths of fundraising diversification: Myth #1: "Let's make this a part of Sally's (or Joe's) job." All development professionals understand raising money is a full-time job. It takes a focused effort, and can be time-consuming, especially if the organization has never had a development department. And for nonprofits that have relied on government funds or a single source of income, building awareness and engaging in marketing activities is an essential part of the equation. Fundraising is all about relationships, and having dedicated staff helps demonstrate a commitment for long-term stability. Myth #2: "The board will (or can) do it." People are asked to serve on your board for many reasons: to fulfil a grant requirement, or because they have influence with a constituency integral to your program or services. But unless the board members were asked to join specifically to help fundraise, there's a good chance that relying on them to help you diversify your funding will result in little forward progress. It's important to understand your current board's strengths and weaknesses. Set up easy wins for board members who might be reluctant to ask for money, and look to build your board with fundraising, marketing, or sales expertise. Along with governance, ensuring the long-term financial health of the organization is one of the most critical roles of a board member.

41

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Myth #3: "People already know who we are." You know what your organization does and why it is so great, but don't assume that others fully understand your importance to the community. You could have a well-run program, but limited awareness that your organization runs it. Or conversely, you might be well-known in the community for one thing, such as Goodwill's retail stores, but folks don't understand the mission behind the public face. Don't let public perception go unchecked or unguided. Paint your picture and tell your story. Education is a key component in a diversification strategy. Myth #4: "ABC Charity raises tons of money with a special event, so..." Special events have many purposes, including raising awareness, cultivating donors, and introducing potential donors to the organization. They are also a lot of work and can be expensive. Before you embark on the special event bandwagon, do your homework. Decide what you want to accomplish by having the event; who is going to help; how it's aligned to your mission, vision, and goals; and whether the event can be sustained and modified year after year. Myth #5: "Let's crank out a couple of private grants and be done with it." If only this statement was true. Grant writing can be a long, tedious, and sometimes discouraging process. Grants are just like every other form of fundraising -- it's all about the relationships you can create with the foundation or family. Remember, foundations are comprised of people. It takes time to educate, inspire, and show that your organization is posed to support their foundation's goals for grant award recipients. What's more, foundations want to see your future plans for funding, a strong mix of funding sources, and the impact your programs are having on the community. Grants are an essential part of diversification, but they're a process rather than a quick win. Myth #6: "The Smiths are wealthy and give to other organizations. They should be willing give to us." There are two major mistakes with this philosophy. The first mistake is the underlying assumption that your organization is a fit. The second mistake is the word "should." Major donors give for a variety of reasons, the least of which is because they "have to." They give because they have a relationship with someone affiliated with the organization or their lives have been touched by the cause supported by the organization. Major donors look at their contributions as investments, so they want assurance that your organization will produce a larger impact with their gifts. Major gift cultivation takes time, patience, and a willingness to forgo short-term urgency for long-term stability. Myth #7: "123 Company is a natural fit. They will support us." Philanthropy is a part of many companies' cultures. However, keep in mind that if the corporation has a formal program, it might require that its employees volunteer, sit on the board, or direct the giving. What's more, if the industry of that particular business is in a down-economy, charitable giving dollars might not be as readily available.

42

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Regardless, the word of caution on this myth is that the businesses which seem like natural fits for your organization could in fact be the hardest ones from which to obtain support. Don't fall into the trap of assumption, but instead, work to establish the relationship. Once you break the barrier, ensure that you engage the business in all possible ways, such that yours becomes their favourite charity. Myth #8: "A direct mail or e-mail campaign will secure individual donations quickly." Direct response campaigns are both an art and a science. Just sending something out to see what sticks is not a good use of your time, money, or your donor's attention. Direct response vehicles, such as direct mail and email campaigns, are strategic donor acquisition tools that must target the right constituency, with the right messages, at the right times. While you may be able to get away with emergency appeals a few times, they are most successful in combination with other efforts. Myth #9: "Putting a donation link on our Web site will make the cash flow." If we build it, they will come. Won't they? Unfortunately, they probably won't come. Like all avenues to raise money, a Web site is not successful in a vacuum. Your Web site is a marketing tool that, if used correctly, can help capture new donors. In today's competitive fundraising landscape, it's critical that you use the Internet in your fundraising mix, as well as have a secure way for donors to contribute online. Diversification takes time, good planning, cultivation, and patience. It's a long-term strategy, not a quick fix in difficult times. But the investment today will keep your organization strong in the future.

43

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Appendix D-The top five: tips for giving (from the PhilanthropyUK website, www.philanthropyuk.org/newsletter/Sep2007Issue30 Accessed May 26, 2008) 1. Invest rather than give. Take a long-term attitude to your contribution, and make sure any conditions are mutually agreed, and not opaque and overly demanding on the organization. 2. Size doesn’t matter. Judge projects which you are investing on their added value to whichever community they serve (national, local or both) and not on the size of their turnover. Small organizations are not always more credible. Big ones are not always more professional. 3. Professional investment. Invest in professional projects. Your money will be used more wisely if the organization in which you invest is well run. 4. Big isn’t necessarily bad. Although being locally sensitive is crucial, if you can reach more people and maintain quality of service, then this is surely a good thing. 5. Club together. This will enable you to fund bigger projects which might be nationally scalable. I would like to see a social investment fund of around £200-£300m-any offers? 6. Appendix D.2 Art and Business Top ten Fundraising Tips Top ten Fundraising tips from Arts and Business (http://www.aandb.org.uk/render.aspx?siteID=5&navIDs=1066,1217,1308, Accessed May 26, 2008) Know yourself thoroughly If you are going to ask anyone to support you, you need to know your own organisation first. What do you do as an arts organisation? How do you do it? Who do you reach? You need to have clear, realistic answers to these and other core questions before you start any external conversations. Fundraising is a group acitivity Everyone in your organisation is a fundraiser, from the Chairman of the Board to today's volunteer. You may have a post called "Fundraiser" but their job is primarily to structure and order your fundraising activity. The person who meets the public at your admissions or information desk, for example, has a vital role to play as they are often the first person in your organisation that a potential donor meets. Don't just pursue the big gifts Before trying to find the large gifts, develop a strong, sustainable and dependable income stream from small to mid-scale gifts. This will not only act as a useful way to test your organisation's ability to fundraise, it is also the only way to ensure that you have a regular income from individuals with which you can plan your future. Devote the resources needed

44

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Fundraising doesn't take much money, but it will take a lot of time. Make sure that you are able to devote the time and energy it needs. What will you stop doing, so that you can start to do the fundraising? Know the tax breaks available You need to know, understand and apply the various tax breaks available to ensure that all your private sector support is given in the most tax efficient way possible. Look after your donors People will give you money because they are passionate about what you do. Make sure that you enhance that relationship with your donor all the time. NEVER take the money and run. Go one step at a time Don't try to do everything at once. Getting the detail right is an important element of fundraising and these can rarely be rushed. Following a strategic and structured plan of action is more likely to result in success than trying to do everything at once. Don't change for the sake of money It can be tempting sometimes to think about developing new strands of work because someone has suggested that they might fund them. Take care with this approach. Ultimately people will want to support you because they share your passion for your work. If the scope of that work develops away from what you are passionate about, there is a danger that your supporters will go away as well. Look to the long term Organisations often start fundraising to address immediate financial needs. In fact fundraising works best when it is focused on the development of long term relationships. Obviously there is no point in thinking about the long term if you are not sure whether your organisation actually has one, but in all other situations try to keep an eye on the long term needs. Know what you can do for others, not what they can do for you. Fundraising is all about the other person - whether that be a donor, a company or a foundation. To successfully develop a relationship with them, you need to recognise how your organisation is able to address their needs and objectives and focus less on how they can help with you. It is all about them, it is not about you.

45

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Appendix F- Further Recommendations (Detailed): Memo/List of Web Sources and Subsequent Suggestions/Links to Resources I offered while volunteering for the Bubble. F.1- Memo/List of Web Sources To: Catherine, Bubble Intern From: Selena Anguiano, Volunteer Da: May 30, 2008 Re: Fundraising Research Information

Catherine-

Attached to this note are two pages of web resources that may be of use to the Bubble for finding out more information on funding schemes, guides and tips on and where and how to begin the fundraising process from different angles. Also listed are databases they can include information on or sign up for to access information about potential individual and corporate donors.

A profile would contain basic information that can be kept for the time being in a secured Excel document or list that includes (but is not limited to) the following:

-Name of Company -Address -Phone Numbers

-Email Contacts, etc. (Definitely note the press/media relations and marketing department contact information. The reason for this is most corporations have planned giving cycles; they will attach major donations to various activities, events and taxcycles for the corporation‟s marketing and financial benefit. The Bubble will need to be in touch with these people as well as any company members that manage the CSR, trust, foundation or giving „areas‟.)

-Number of Years in Business

46

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

-A précis of company’s history (This includes what industry, various levels of the company in terms of staff i.e. is it a two-tiered company or three-tiered, etc. how many staff, etc. All the basics about the company so that when the Bubble approaches them, they know as much if not more about the company then the company will know about the Bubble.) -A separate history (This should be done if the company has a separate trust, foundation, or section of the company that works exclusively on their CSR campaigns and initiatives. It will be even more important to be aware of these things if they exist within the company‟s infrastructure.)

-Highest Level Management Staff/Board Member/Trustees Information (Pay particular attention to the CSR Boards/Committees-those people might have connections to people Bubble staff know…It is the „Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon‟ game.) -Annual Report/Budget Information (This information will be listed on the company websites, particularly if they are a publicly owned company (US). The Bubble can also find out how much they are trading in, etc. from various economic publications i.e. the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The Economist, Fortune Magazine, newspaper business sections, etc.) -Corporate Affiliations and Partners (This information becomes a cross-reference for finding other potential individual and corporate sponsors later on as the research continues.) -Amounts of giving/ Employee giving/matching schemes (Some companies will match employee donations that are given to organizations that the company designates or that the employees feel is worthy of individual support. Watch out for these things because this is where the individual and corporate sponsorship mixes.) -Articles or publications that feature the company’s philanthropic work. (Often times, things may be covered in „popular‟ media; the Bubble will want to Google the company. Doing this, the Bubble can find loads of useful secondary information. This is the backstage kind of stuff.)

47

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

BIG THING TO REMEMBER WHEN RESEARCHING-Do not waste time on a person or company unless they specifically state that they give to organizations that promote things that the Bubble already provides. If not, you have wasted time trying to make the Bubble fit the profile of the company you seek funding from rather than finding an organization that wants to start a relationship with the Bubble expressly for what the Bubble offers. The minute you read they give to the environment or medical research, put a pin in it and six months from now when there is time, go back and see if they have expanded their giving portfolio.

List of web-accessible sites for philanthropy in UK/US: 1- The Big Give (http://www.thebiggive.org.uk/) The Big Give is a free to use philanthropy website that helps major donors find highlevel charity projects in their field of interest. Any registered UK charity may register free and post their projects on the site. 2-Guidestar (http://guidestar.org.uk/) 3-BoardEx.com (http://boardex.com/default.aspx) A web application that allows fundraising researchers the opportunity to find and track individuals in the corporate world who have a history of sponsorship and giving. There is included a searchable database on boards and senior management of thousands of U.S. and European public and private companies. BoardEx has the capability to analyze current and historical linkages between companies, individuals, not-for-profits organizations and other private associations. 4-Chronicle of Philanthropy (http://philanthropy.com/) The Chronicle of Philanthropy is the newspaper/online resource of the non-profit world. Printed biweekly and access online, gives the latest information on the philanthropic enterprise. The Web site offers the complete contents of the latest issue, an archive of past issues and articles published since October 1997, and two issues' worth of the most recent grant listings. Although this is geared towards American non-profits, it has useful web links and resources for all basic non-profit fundraising needs. 5-PhilanthropyUK (http://www.philanthropyuk.org/Home) PhilanthropyUK is a website dedicated to informing, educating and cultivating the individual and corporate donor in the UK. It is a great website for organizations that want to understand the motivations behind those who give from the donor‟s point of 48

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

view. It is also a resource for how to approach donors that are new to the area of giving and what information they are looking for in a profile provide them by organizations that approach them or that they are interested in donating to. The link below is posted on the PhilanthropyUK website. It provides resources for those seeking grants, sponsorship and donations of various kinds. (http://www.philanthropyuk.org/Resources/Forgrant-seekers) 6- Foundation Directory Online (http://fconline.fdncenter.org/) The Foundation Directory Online provides access to two fully searchable databases. The foundation database houses a collection of data on 80,000 foundations, corporate giving programs, and grant-making public charities. The grants database is a collection of 500,000 records of grants awarded by foundations. Both databases are searchable and are designed to give access to information on each foundation's funding interests and giving history. This is also more for American organizations, but good if you are seeking information on foundations that have an international philanthropy profile or you determine businesses in other research that give to charities and want more information about them. 7-Investors Chronicle (http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/InvestmentGuides/Shares/article/20071231/ 3cf49392-a8cc-11dc-bac1-00144f2af8e8/All-in-a-good-cause.jsp) A UK-based website dedicated to investors in the business world. The link above goes directly to information about giving and provides resources to other website links for donors and organizations/individuals seeking funding. 8- UK & Eire - Fundraising Consultancies and Philanthropy Advisors (PDF) (http://www.plannedgiving.org.uk/eapg/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pd f=1&id=88) A PDF document containing a list of consultancies and companies that advise on fundraising and giving. 9-Institute for Philanthropy (http://www.instituteforphilanthropy.org.uk/) The Institute for Philanthropy is a non-profit making organization which was established in 2000 to develop a greater understanding of philanthropy and its place in modern society, and ultimately to allow philanthropy to thrive. This is another online resource like PhilanthropyUK that also has links to other websites dedicated to philanthropy

49

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

F.2- Extract from email sent to Shipra Ogra on May 31, 2008, offering further suggestions for the Bubble to explore:

I have a suggestion for the fund-raising activities the Bubble is exploring... (…)a de-facto fund-raising department. The boys I met while volunteering and potentially any other teenagers could take the research component of the fund-raising work by the helm. As with the information I provided Catherine, give the boys or any others a set of guidelines and targets for what to look for when researching individuals and companies online and in various print literatures. One day a week (perhaps twofour hours on a Saturday morning) they would all come in, take up a computer and set about gathering the rudimentary information on potential candidates that can then be easily compiled in the Excel spreadsheet suggested.

This opportunity will add a new level of engagement to the Bubble's community/education profile for presentation to donors and provide them with a new view of the Bubble as being very proactive and seriously determined to remain in tact despite the recent cuts.

One thing the Bubble can bank on is that if the company says it is exploring different long-term, healthy fund-raising options and show donors a working example such as a start-up volunteer program focused on development and dedicated to locating and establishing new income streams, they will be more eager to give. Volunteering programs are an essential component of development departments in the US (and in various organizations here.) People that volunteer are treated like financial donors and receive benefits in-kind from arts organizations. It will show to potential donors that the Bubble understands the need to not rely so heavily on one 'source' of funding any longer. It will show how serious the company is about their commitment to the community and cultivating and sustaining relationships with people. And it will show that the Bubble is about also expanding their reach into the community, teaching new skills to individuals (students) outside of theatre production, rather more akin to theatre management. Donors won't think the Bubble is just hitting them up because they have run out of other options and intend to take the money and run. (…)

50

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Kind regards-Selena

F.3- Second extract from email sent to Shipra Ogra, July 14, 2008

Hiya Shipra-I just thought I would send this. I am part of a DCTheatre Community Listserve and so I get posts about auditions, workshops, lectures, classes, admin jobs, discounted tickets, and links for helpful hints, etc for running and working in theatre. I have looked this entire site over and thought maybe there were some ideas you all could use. I know you already have the Ebay one going and I don't know if they offer the return for non-profits here that they do in the States...

however, even though you may not be able to use these exact companies, you could use the idea and find the companies here that are the same or similar.

And of course when approaching those organizations, you can ask for more special discounts, explain to them why you are using this avenue (in casual conversation) and see what kind of partnerships you can generate. Local businesses love it when you offer them the chance at some free marketing-their logo on Bubble handouts and the website, etc in exchange for some special discounts on their products that you then put back into fundraising initiatives:))) http://www.squidoo.com/communitytheatrefundraising

This is the site and we are all so open and eager to help in the States; I bet if you posted to this woman and told her about the Bubble, et al, she might be able to help with some standard ideas too.

Hope you are well. The paper is coming along nicely.

Selena

51

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

F.4-Third extract from email for Shipra Ogra and London Bubble, sent July 17, 2008

I hope this finds you well. I read ArtsJournal each morning and came across this blog; it was funny and lucid and had great basic ideas that smaller arts orgs could try out to achieve greater visibility on the cheap.

Maybe you all have tried some of this before and maybe not...no one has the Met Opera budget but the suggestions made for maximizing on these marketing/advocacy initiatives might be applicable for you guys, especially since the Bubble is about education and community engagement. These fall right in line with that!

http://www.artsjournal.com/lifesapitch/2008/07/splurge-the-met-steal-you.html

I love stealing ideas because you can always make them your own!

Take care.

F.5- Final extract from email sent to Shipra Ogra on July 22, 2008, offering further suggestions for the Bubble to explore:

Hi Shipra-This link will take you to the Chronicle of Philanthropy and a recent discussion on the current economic recession and its effects on charities and nonprofits. These are just perhaps some tips for the coming months to think about as the Bubble delves further into the world of private contributions and sponsorships, etc. http://philanthropy.com/news/prospecting/index.php?id=5229

Wishes-s.

52

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

References/Bibliography Adebowale CBE, Lord Victor. (2008). The top five: tips for giving, Investing for impact. PhilanthropyUK (Online). Available from: www.philanthropy.co.uk. (Accessed July 15, 2008). Anonymous Quote given by Performing Arts Manager, City University CPM Lecture on (Artistic) Programming Module (February 2008) Arts and Business. (2008). Colin Tweedy’s media response to the launch of Private Giving for the Public Good. Press release (Online). Issued Friday, April 25, 2008. Available from: www.aandb.org.uk. (Accessed May 26, 2008). Arts and Business. (2008). Gift Aid Information. http://www.aandb.org.uk/render.aspx?siteID=5&navIDs=1066,1217,1305. (Accessed May, 26, 2008). Arts and Business. (2008). Description of Arts and Business Mission http://www.aandb.org.uk/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,3. (Accessed June 28, 2008). Arts and Business. (2008). Private Investment in the Cultural Sector Survey, 2006-07. Available from: http://www.aandb.org.uk/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,150,1125. (Accessed June 26, 2008). Arts Council England. (2008). http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/gfta2006_about.php. (Accessed June 8, 2008). BBC. (2008). „Olympics £440m „drain on culture‟. The BBC News Channel. Reported Monday, February 25, 2008 (Online). Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7262307.stm. (Accessed February 26, 2008). Binkiewicz, Donna M. (2004). Federalizing the Muse: United States Arts Policy and The National Endowment for the Arts 1965-1980. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Brown, Mark. (2008). Express yourself: Arts Council's new way to judge how well public money is spent. The Guardian. Issued Tuesday, May 13, 2008. Available from: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0,,2279413,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=40. (Accessed May 14, 2008). Burton, Heather. (2008). Nine Myths to Fundraising Diversification. NonProfit Times (Online). Available from: http://www.nptimes.com/instantfund/08May/IF-080522-1.html. (Accessed June 13, 2008). DCMS. (2008). http://www.culture.gov.uk/index.aspx. (Accessed May 26, 2008)

53

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

DCMS. (2008). www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/GuidetoArtsFundinginEngland.pdf. (Accessed June 15, 2008) GivingUSA. (2008). http://www.givingusa.org/gusa/mission.cfm. (Accessed June 28, 2008). Higgins, Charlotte. (2008). Tories' US-style philanthropy plan for the arts. The Guardian (Online). Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/24/conservatives.politicsandthearts (Accessed July 5, 2008). HM Treasury. (2008). http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spend_index.cfm. (Accessed July 5, 2008). Jack Petchey Foundation. (2008). http://www.jackpetcheyfoundation.org.uk/ (Accessed July 2, 2008). Jay, Elaine and Adrian Sargent. (2004). Fundraising management: analysis, planning and practice. Oxon: Routledge. Jay, Elaine, Lee, Stephen and Sargent, Adrian. (2002). Major Gift PhilanthropyIndividual Giving to the Arts. Available from: www.aandb.org.uk. Accessed May 20, 2008. LabforCulture.(2008). http://www.labforculture.org/en/Funding/Glossary. (Accessed July 7, 2008). Lloyd, Theresa. (2004). Why Rich People Give. London: Association of Charitable Foundations. London Bubble. (2008). http://www.londonbubble.org.uk/mission. (Accessed May 25,
2008)

McMaster, Brian. (2008). Supporting Excellence in the Arts-From „Measurement to Judgement‟. Available from DCMS: http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/media_releases/2146.aspx. (Accessed July 5, 2008). Nayeri, Farah. (2008). The Wealthy Should Give More to Arts in the U.K., Report Says Bloomberg. Bloomberg (Online). Issued April 25, 2008. Available from: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601121&sid=aWxd.geZxxG4&refer= muse. (Accessed April 27, 2008). Reiss, Alvin H. (1995). Don’t Just Applaud-Send Money! The Most Successful Strategies for Funding and Marketing the Arts. New York: Theatre Communications Group.

54

The Benefits of U.S. Individual Giving for England's Arts (Case Study)

Anguiano, S.

Seltzer, Michael. (2001). Securing Your Organization’ Future: A Complete Guide to Fundraising Strategies. New York: The Foundation Center. The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. (2008). http://www.kennedy-center.org/. (Accessed June 25, 2008) The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. (2008). www.kennedy-center.org/support/membership. (Accessed July 5, 2008). Tiscali. (2008). Tiscali.reference. (Online). Available from: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0028820.html. (Accessed July 8, 2008). Wright, Karen. (2002). Civil Society Working Paper 17. Generosity vs. altruism: Philanthropy and charity in the US and UK. London: The Centre for Civil Society. Interviews Bond, Sharon. (SBond@connect2amc.com). (June 16, 2008). FW: Inquiry from a graduate student. Email to: Anguiano, Selena. (Selena.anguiano@gmail.com). Ogra, Shipra (May 22, 2008). In-person interview at London Bubble Theatre Company Offices, approximately 2 hours in length from 11:00am to 1:00pm. shipra@londonbubble.org.uk. Oliver, Holly (June 27, 2008). Telephone interview at approximately 8:00pm local, 3:00pm EST. 1 hour in length from 8:00pm -9:00pm. HKOliver@kennedy-center.org. Petherbridge, Samuel (May 29, 2008). In-person interview at London Bubble Theatre Company Offices, approximately 15 minutes in length from 10:30am -10:45am. Squeaky_man@hotmail.co.uk.

55