Social Justice Donors vs. Mainstream Wealthy Donors: A Comparative Analysis
📷 credit: Johnson Center for Philanthropy
Reposted from the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy.
In the diverse landscape of philanthropy, a groundbreaking report from Ktisis Capital has illuminated stark differences between social justice donors (SJ donors) and the general population of wealthy donors. This first-of-its-kind comparative analysis offers valuable insights into the unique characteristics, motivations, and practices of those committed to advancing racial, social, economic, and environmental justice through their giving.
For years, the annual Bank of America Study of Philanthropy, conducted with Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, has been the gold standard for data on high-net-worth donor behavior. Now, Ktisis Capital’s report provides a fresh additional perspective, comparing SJ donors with that broader universe of wealthy donors. While the BoA survey group undoubtedly includes many donors who identify as social justice donors, the overall research provides a sort of “control group” effect. In this article, we refer to the BoA group as “general donors” as a shorthand for the “general population” of high-net-worth donors. The findings reveal significant disparities in approach, strategy, and focus between the two groups.
A tale of two donor types
One of the most striking differences lies in the sheer scope of giving. While nearly all SJ donors (97%) reported supporting five or more organizations, less than half of general donors did the same. In fact, almost two-thirds of SJ donors spread their generosity across more than 20 groups. This pattern suggests that SJ donors cast a wider net, potentially seeking to address interconnected issues through a more diverse portfolio of beneficiaries.
When it comes to causes, SJ donors showed a clear preference for democracy and political activities, environmental and climate justice, and racial justice and healing. Compared to their non-SJ counterparts, SJ donors were 5.5 times more likely to support racial justice causes and four times more likely to back environmental initiatives. This focus on systemic issues contrasts sharply with mainstream donors, who were more inclined to support religion and human services.
Perhaps the most dramatic difference between the two groups is their approach to political engagement. In a near-perfect inverse, almost 80% of SJ donors reported giving to political candidates, campaigns, or committees in the 2020 election cycle, while nearly the same percentage of the total population of donors abstained from political giving entirely. This stark contrast highlights the SJ donor’s view of political participation as an integral part of their philanthropic strategy.
The strategic mindset of SJ donors extends to how they structure and evaluate their giving. They are significantly more likely to have a guiding strategy (65% versus 41% of general donors) and to use sophisticated giving vehicles like donor-advised funds (73% versus 5%). Moreover, while only a fifth of general donors monitor or evaluate the impact of their donations, more than two-thirds of SJ donors engage in some form of impact assessment. This emphasis on strategy and evaluation suggests a more holistic intentional approach to philanthropy among SJ donors.
Lastly, the report reveals intriguing differences in how these two groups perceive their own expertise and seek to develop as donors. A majority of SJ donors (63%) rate themselves as highly knowledgeable or experts in philanthropy, compared to a mere 4% of general donors. This confidence is reflected in their learning interests: SJ donors are more inclined to advance concepts like impact investing and integrating philanthropy into wealth management, while general donors focus on more baseline activities like identifying volunteer opportunities and understanding how nonprofits operate and serve constituents.
Beyond the headlines
While these key differences paint a vivid picture, the report offers many more insights. Readers interested in a deeper dive can find additional comparisons in the full report, including:
The motivations driving giving for each group
How decisionmaking about donations differs between SJ and general donors
The unique challenges faced by each donor type in their philanthropic journey
Implications for future directions
This groundbreaking report has significant implications for various stakeholders in the philanthropic world. For donors, it highlights the growing importance of long-term, flexible funding and collaborative giving in creating systemic change. Nonprofits seeking support from SJ donors should focus on demonstrating their approach to systemic change and providing comprehensive impact data. The philanthropic sector as a whole may need to develop more sophisticated tools and resources, particularly in areas such as impact measurement for social change work and platforms to facilitate collaborative giving.
However, it is important to note that this is just the beginning. The relatively small sample size of SJ donors (68 respondents) and potential geographic biases in the responses highlight the need for further research and should be a caution to all on relying too much on this data to direct fundraising or donor organizing efforts. There may also be some bias in the results tied to the sample size and sample source — the Bank of America study surveys wealthy clients who happen to give, while the Ktisis survey respondents primarily were reached through donor networks and donor education programs which may over index for highly engaged donors. As we continue to gather more data and insights and expand our survey size in future years, we can refine our understanding of how to effectively engage donors to progressive causes and address the pressing racial, social, economic, and environmental challenges of our time.
The differences revealed in this report between SJ donors and the general population of wealthy donors underscore the diversity within the philanthropic community. By recognizing and understanding these differences, we can work toward a more nuanced and effective approach to philanthropy that leverages the unique strengths and motivations of different donor groups.