SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research

Russell James, profile picture
Russell James

The document discusses research on encouraging bequest giving to cancer research charities through targeted messaging. The key findings are: 1. Research found that bequest decision-making engages brain regions associated with "visualized autobiography" more than current giving or volunteering. 2. Testing different messages showed that stories about living bequest donors outperformed other messages like evidence on spendthrift heirs for 40 out of 40 charities. 3. Charities that saw the biggest improvements from donor stories involved causes like wildlife and dogs that the story donors benefited, showing the importance of story cause matching the charity's mission.

Health & Medicine
1 of 94
Downloaded 23 times
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research Prof. Russell James Texas Tech University
1. The right message 2. To the right people 3. At the right time Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research charities
1. The right message Visualized Autobiography Family Emotion Life Stories Tribute Bequests Theory Research Practical Results
Research Bequest decision-making emphasizes “visualized autobiography” brain regions Visualized Autobiography
* weighted nationally representative 2006 sample from Health and Retirement Study Over-50 US Donors ($500+) with Charitable Plans, 9.4% Over-50 US Donors ($500+) With No Charitable Plans, 90.6% Bequest Giving is Different
Charitable bequest decision- making v. giving or volunteering decision- making
Contrast Brain Region MNI co-ord inates Peak p FWE Clust-er p FWE (1) Beq> Give Lingual Gyrus -2, -78, -2 .004 .000 Precuneus 26, -66, 42 .102 .009 (2) Beq> Vol Lingual Gyrus 2, -80, - 4 .007 .000 Precuneus 30, -66, 40 .180 .004 Precentral Gyrus -34, -3, 36 .397 .001 (3) Beq> (Give+ Vol) Lingual Gyrus 0, -78, - 4 .001 .000 Precuneus 26, -66, 42 .007 .001
Visualized autobiography visualization + 3rd person perspective on self lingual gyrus is part of the visual system, damage can result in losing the ability to dream precuneus has been called “the mind’s eye,” used in taking a 3rd person perspective on one’s self
In a study where older adults were shown photographs from across their life, precuneus and lingual gyrus activation occurred when they were able to vividly relive events in the photo, but not where scenes were only vaguely familiar (Gilboa, et al., 2004) Visualized Autobiography In other studies, both regions simultaneously activated by mentally “traveling back in time”(Viard, et al., 2007) or recalling autobiographical personal events Denkova (2006)
“when discussing which charities they had chosen to remember, there was a clear link with the life narratives of many respondents” Life stories Summarizing a series of interviews with planned donors, Dr. Claire Routley wrote…
Research Bequest decision-making emphasizes “visualized autobiography” brain regions Visualized Autobiography
Research Visualized Autobiography Application Life Stories Tell life stories of donors who will live beyond their death through their bequest giving
Tested different marketing messages with 11 groups, 4,560 total, 40 charities
Organization BEQ Give Amer Cancer Society 26.79 36.77 The Red Cross 25.93 41.12 ASPCA 24.18 33.77 Habitat for Humanity 24.01 34.90 Amer Heart Association 23.17 33.95 Natl Cancer Coalition 22.56 34.54 Breast Cancer Res Fnd 22.53 33.93 Natl Breast Cancer Fnd 22.43 33.48 The Amer Humane Assn 22.23 33.91 The Alzheimer's Found 21.40 32.00 Susan G. Komen Br Canc 21.39 29.22 Dana Farber Cancer Inst 21.13 29.63 American Diabetes Assn 20.84 32.54 World Wildlife Fund 20.82 29.08 Guide Dogs for the Blind 20.80 31.46 The Alzheimer's Assn 20.80 31.86 American Lung Assn 20.78 31.40 MD Anderson Cancer Cr 20.59 30.53 UNICEF 20.37 32.31 The Salvation Army 19.98 31.44 Organization BEQ Give Wildlife Conserv Soc 19.90 29.26 Goodwill Industries 19.65 34.42 Big Brothrs/Big Sisters 19.47 30.49 The United Way 18.97 28.97 Joslin Diabetes Center 18.91 29.18 Canine Compan for In 18.90 29.67 Fnd Fightng Blindness 18.77 28.37 AIDS Project LA 17.71 25.64 Prevent Blindss Amer 17.51 28.32 San Fran AIDS Found 17.39 25.49 Nat Audubon Society 17.33 24.24 YMCA 17.16 28.12 Boys and Girls Clubs 17.14 30.10 Girl Scouts 16.71 31.27 YWCA 16.21 24.42 Amer Indian College F 15.97 22.33 CARE 15.86 24.69 Boy Scouts 14.51 23.56 United Negro Coll Fnd 14.13 21.90 Ducks Unlimited 13.60 19.49
2 MD Anderson NatCancCoalition NatBreastCF Komen Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap All 27.73 17.55 10.18 31.44 19.56 11.88 33.33 19.87 13.47 31.01 19.97 11.04 Femle 27.06 14.81 12.25 30.63 17.27 13.36 34.95 19.52 15.43 33.09 19.52 13.57 Male 28.88 22.29 6.59 32.85 23.52 9.33 30.53 20.46 10.06 27.40 20.74 6.65 50+ 20.59 11.33 9.27 27.08 9.94 17.14 26.41 10.83 15.58 28.72 13.09 15.63 1 Dana Farber ACS BreastCRF ALL Cancer Orgs Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap All 26.73 17.08 9.65 37.70 24.47 13.23 33.69 21.10 12.59 31.66 19.94 11.72 Femle 26.06 15.34 10.72 37.66 22.85 14.81 34.83 20.43 14.41 32.04 18.53 13.51 Male 27.89 20.07 7.82 37.77 27.25 10.52 31.73 22.25 9.47 31.00 22.37 8.64 50+ 20.59 9.14 11.44 34.46 16.63 17.83 25.41 11.62 13.79 26.18 11.80 14.38 Individual Cancer Organizations
Presented formal evidence on the tendency of heirs to quickly spend inherited assets and the reasons for this rapid expenditure
Presented formal evidence on the widespread approval and acceptability of leaving a bequest gift to charity as an American social norm
Message Beq Gap Cancer 2 Cancer1 None 10.24 11.64 11.82 Spendthrift Heirs Evidence 9.42 11.16 American Social Norms Evidence 8.80 8.90 Both 8.02 10.12
Deceased donor stories (with new images or pure text)
Message Beq Gap Cancer 2 Cancer1 None 10.24 11.64 11.82 Spendthrift Heirs Evidence 9.42 11.16 American Social Norms Evidence 8.80 8.90 Both 8.02 10.12 Deceased Bequest Donor Stories 6.18 8.41 8.86
Living donor stories (otherwise identical) Ex: “School janitor Lester Holmes died in 1992” becomes “School janitor Lester Holmes signed his will today”
Message Beq Gap Cancer 2 Cancer1 None 10.24 11.64 11.82 Spendthrift Heirs Evidence 9.42 11.16 American Social Norms Evidence 8.80 8.90 Both 8.02 10.12 Deceased Bequest Donor Stories 6.18 8.41 8.86 Living Bequest Donor Stories 4.32 4.62 6.37 Both 6.00 6.43 8.44
Message All Gap MD And Dana Fa None 10.24 10.18 9.65 Spendthrift Heirs Evidence 9.42 9.44 American Social Norms Evidence 8.80 6.75 Both 8.02 7.87 Deceased Bequest Donor Stories 6.18 8.46 5.97 Living Bequest Donor Stories 4.32 3.43 3.89 Both 6.00 5.52 6.85
Which of the four message types worked best for which of the 40 charities?
Living donor stories outperformed all other messages for 40 out of 40 charities tested
Which charities saw the biggest improvement from donor stories?
Largest improvement •Wildlife Conservation Society •World Wildlife Federation •Canine Companions for the Blind •Guide Dogs for the Blind •Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America The stories featured gifts benefiting wildlife, dogs, and youth and two unrepresented categories (symphony and hospital chapel) The bequest donor concept helped all charities, but the story cause still mattered
With new images or pure text (no significant difference) Effect of More Stories 1st 4 Stories: Janitor, pet groomer, carpenter, symphony patron 2nd 3 Stories: fisherman, coach, physician Message Give-Beq Gap Gap 50+ Gap Male Gap Female None 10.2 14.0 7.7 11.7 Deceased 1st 4 stories 6.8 7.5 5.5 7.6 Deceased All 7 stories 6.6 7.5 5.4 7.4 Mixed Dec/Liv 7 stories 6.0 7.2 5.0 6.6 Living 1st 4 stories 4.8 5.7 3.9 5.4 Living All 7 stories 4.1 2.5 3.0 4.7
Although numerical ability declines with age, verbal knowledge does not Park, et al (2002) Psychology and Aging, 17(2), 299-320
Research Visualized Autobiography Application Life Stories Tell life stories of donors who will live beyond their death through their bequest giving
Research Bequests to friends and family engage memory and emotion brain regions more than charitable bequests Family Emotion
New experiment •Increased realism of decision-making •Comparing different types of bequest decision (not bequest giving v. current giving)
At the end of this session, a legally valid last will and testament will be mailed to you at no charge. To help you design your plan, we need to ask about some of your desires and preferences… (in varied order) About what percentage of your estate would you like to go to any charities?... friends who are not family members?... family members? Are there any specific personal property items you would like to leave to any charities? …friends who are not family members? …family members? Would you like to leave any specific dollar amount cash gifts (e.g., $250) to any charities? …friends who are not family members? ….family members?
Bequests to friends and family (v. charitable bequests) more heavily involve brain regions of 1. Emotion (mid/posterior cingulate cortex; insula) 2. Memory (hippocampus) This difference was stronger for females than males. See Maddock, Garrett & Buonocore, 2003
Research Bequests to friends and family engage memory and emotion brain regions more than charitable bequests Family Emotion
Tribute Bequests Remind donors of life story connections of friends/family with the charity/cause and provide tribute bequest opportunities Research Family Emotion Application
Female, 63 widowed ‘The reason I selected Help the Aged...it was after my mother died...And I just thought – she’d been in a care home for probably three or four years. And I just wanted to help the elderly...I’d also support things like Cancer Research, because people I’ve known have died...An animal charity as well, I had a couple of cats.’ Bequest charity representing loved ones “‘[In my will I have a gift to] the Cancer Research. My father died of cancer and so I have supported them ever since he died.’ Male, 89 married (Routley, 2011, p. 220-221)
Since many charitable bequest gifts appear to be in honor of a loved one, what happens when we specifically ask about making a charitable bequest honoring a friend or family member?
Bequests to friends and family (v. charitable bequests) more heavily involve brain regions of Emotion (mid/posterior cingulate cortex; insula) and Memory (hippocampus) Can a charitable bequest represent a loved one, and thereby connect with this memory and emotion?
Do you have a deceased friend or deceased family member who would have appreciated your support of an International relief organization such as CARE or UNICEF? Also tested for living friend or family member Alzheimer’s The Alzheimer's Association, The Alzheimer's Foundation Diabetes Joslin Diabetes Center, The American Diabetes Association Wild Birds Preservation National Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited Wildlife World Wildlife Fund, Wildlife Conservation Society Minority College Fund United Negro College Fund, American Indian College Fund Blindness related nonprofit Foundation Fighting Blindness, Prevent Blindness America Youth-related charitable Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America, Boys and Girls Clubs of America AIDS research and care San Francisco AIDS Foundation, AIDS Project Los Angeles Animal welfare American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The American Humane Association International relief UNICEF, Care Cancer research American Cancer Society, National Cancer Coalition, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Dana Farber Cancer Institute Guide dogs Guide Dogs for the Blind, Canine Companions for Independence Breast cancer research Breast Cancer Research Foundation, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation If so, please state your relationship to them and write at least 25 words describing their interest in or connection with this cause. If you signed a will in the next 3 months, what is the likelihood you might leave a BEQUEST gift honoring a living [deceased] friend or family member to _____ Testing the tribute bequest
Tribute charitable bequest decisions (with family connections) create more neural activation (consistent with processing memory and emotion) than standard charitable bequest decisions tribute bequest-fix> initial bequest-fix initial bequest-fix> tribute bequest-fix
Change in charitable bequest intention for those with family/friend connection Total Age 50+ Male Female Memorial reminder +14.0 +14.0 +13.5 +14.0 Living reminder +9.2 +9.3 +7.7 +9.9 Connection reminder + tribute bequest offer increases interest Average share with family/friend connections to each cause Total Age 50+ Male Female Memorial reminder 22.1% 27.1% 19.5% 23.6% Living reminder 34.2% 36.1% 30.4% 36.6%
Change in charitable bequest intention for those with family/friend connection Total Age 50+ Male Female Memorial reminder +11.7 +12.2 +11.0 +12.1 Memorial reminder (after other messages) +15.0 +14.0 +15.3 +14.8 Living reminder +9.4 +11.3 +6.4 +10.0 Living reminder (after other messages) +9.2 +9.1 +7.9 +9.9 Connection reminder + tribute bequest offer can be “stacked” with other bequest messages
Giving – Tribute Bequest Total Age 50+ Male Female Memorial reminder (after living/ deceased stories) -4.2 -1.7 -6.5 -3.1 Living reminder (after living/ deceased stories) -3.3 -2.3 -2.4 -3.7 Donor stories + tribute reminder eliminates giving-bequest intention gap for those with friend/family connections DONOR STORY TRIBUTE REMINDER DONOR STORY DONOR STORY
Do tribute bequests work better/worse for different types of organizations?
Memorial Living Diabetes 16.9 Wild birds 12.8 Alzheimer’s 16.0 Diabetes 12.7 AIDS 14.1 AIDS 11.4 Minority college fund 14.0 Alzheimer’s 11.2 Cancer 12.6 Int’l relief 10.4 Breast canc. 11.7 Blindness 10.3 Wild birds 11.1 Pets 9.5 Int’l relief 10.9 Cancer 9.4 Pets 10.6 Guide dogs 9.3 Blindness 10.2 Breast canc. 8.6 Guide dogs 9.2 Minority college fund 7.4 Youth 7.7 Wildlife 6.1 Wildlife 7.1 Youth 5.2 Impact Change in charitable bequest intention for those with family/friend connection Frequency Likelihood of reporting a family or friend connection with the cause Memorial Living Cancer 46% Pets 56% Breast canc. 39% Breast canc. 54% Alzheimer’s 29% Cancer 49% Diabetes 28% Wildlife 41% Pets 28% Diabetes 38% Wildlife 18% Youth 37% Guide dogs 15% Alzheimer’s 30% Youth 15% Guide dogs 23% Int’l relief 14% Wild birds 18% AIDS 11% Minority college fund 18% Wild birds 10% AIDS 17% Blindness 9% Int’l relief 16% Minority college fund 8% Blindness 15% Impact and frequency vary with cause
Do memorial or tribute bequests work better or worse for different family members?
Tribute bequests are more attractive for ascendants, less for descendants or friends Family and friend words associated with interest in a tribute bequest (ranked by strength of correlation) Positive Non-significant Negative grandmother +7.5 dad girl -12.8 family +3.5 children boy -13.7 mother +2.4 uncle kids -8.4 aunt +2.6 sister girls -12.1 grandfather +2.7 mom friends -3.5 husband +3.6 wife boys -11.6 cousin brother -6.4 parents daughter -6.1 son child -5.8 father friend -1.4
Simple language and starting with honor Interested Now 23% 16% 13% Will Never Be Interested 17% 21% 21% 2014 Survey, 1,961 Respondents, Groups B/A/H Honor a friend or family member by making a memorial gift to charity in my last will & testament Make a bequest gift to charity in my last will & testament in honor of a friend or family member who appreciated the charity's work Make a bequest gift to charity in my last will & testament in honor of a friend or family member who was passionate about the charity's work
Simple implementations Samples courtesy of Phyllis Freedman, President of SmartGiving and “The Planned Giving Blogger” to “honor a friend or family member by making a memorial gift to charity in my last will & testament” In a 2014 survey, 1 in 4 increased their intention to leave a charitable bequest when given the option
Tribute Bequests Remind donors of life story connections of friends/family with the charity/cause and provide tribute bequest opportunities Research Family Emotion Application
1. The right message 2. To the right people 3. At the right time
Predicting if any charitable estate gift occurs at death
Different ways to compare the predictive power of each item Best lone item If you could only know ONE FACT about a person, what is the value of EACH FACT BY ITSELF? Best group of items If you could only know FIVE FACTS about a person, what are the FIVE MOST IMPORTANT facts to know? Best additional item If you knew ALL OF THE OTHER statistics about a person, what is the ADDED VALUE of knowing this ONE EXTRA fact?
lone items Rank Variable Likelihood changes by __ percentage points Comparing 1 3 % years giving $500+ 8.69% 8.74% 100% v. 0% 2 1 % years reporting funded trust 13.99% 16.69% 100% v. 0% 3 5 Highest $ year of giving 0.15% 0.16% + $1000 4 6 Average $ giving per year 0.29% 0.21% + $1000 5 8 Gave $500+ in last report 6.41% 6.29% Yes v. No 6 2 $ of giving in last report 0.24% 0.28% + $1000 7 4 Funded trust in last report 9.37% 10.80% Yes v. No 8 7 No offspring exists 8.21% 10.42% Yes v. No 9 11 % of years reporting a will 5.22% 5.41% 100% v. 0% 10 16 Last reported wealth 0.14% 0.12% doubles 11 9 Living children at last report -7.36% -9.33% Yes v. No 12 10 Average reported wealth 0.20% 0.24% doubles 13 12 Highest reported wealth 0.19% 0.22% doubles 14 14 Will in last report 3.97% 4.21% Yes v. No 15 20 Not a high school graduate -3.60% -3.68% v. all other levels 16 13 % years volunteering 100+ hrs 6.21% 7.01% 100% v. 0% 17 15 Grandchildren at last report -3.77% -5.04% Yes v. No •Ranked by R2 where p<.05 •All decedents (10,233) •Those ever diagnosed with cancer (3,498)
Reported wills are often unused 16% 38% 10% 19% 11% 6% Distributed estates where decedent reported having a written and witnessed will (n=6,063) No will found Will probated Unprobated will: nothing much of value Unprobated will: estate otherwise distributed Unprobated will: trust distributed Unprobated will: other
Funded trusts more likely to work 75% 5% 10% 4% 2% 4% Distributed estates where decedent reported having a funded trust (n=913) Funded trust exists No documents Will probated Unprobated will: Otherwise divided Will - Nothing much of value Will - Unknown
lone items Rank Variable Likelihood changes by __ percentage points Comparing 18 25 Trend in reported wealth 3.01% 2.55% doubles v. no Δ 19 17 Graduate education 5.28% 7.40% v. all other levels 20 22 Number of children -0.53% -0.64% + 1 child 21 23 Race: White 3.22% 4.02% v. other race 22 21 Bachelor's degree 5.22% 6.39% v. all other levels 23 19 100+ vol. hours at last report 3.53% 5.05% Yes v. No 24 27 Some (< 4 years) college 3.15% 2.70% v. all other levels 25 31 Hispanic ethnicity -4.33% -3.90% v. other race 26 34 Race: Black -2.79% -3.71% v. other race 27 n/s Female 1.95% n/s v. male 28 24 Average volunteer hrs per year 0.91% 1.12% +100 hours 29 28 Married -1.85% -1.80% v. not married 30 26 % of years as homeowner 1.73% 2.35% 100% v. 0% 31 30 Highest vol. hours reported 0.34% 0.36% +100 hours 32 33 Last volunteer hours reported 0.44% 0.58% +100 hours 33 n/s Homeowner at last report 0.95% n/s v. not own 34 18 Age at death 0.17% 1.78% +10 years •Ranked by R2 where p<.05 •All decedents (10,233) •Those ever diagnosed with cancer (3,498)
Less important lone items Rank Variable Likelihood changes by __ percentage points Comparing 35 n/s Lowest reported wealth -0.03% n/s doubles n/s 29 High school education n/s -1.79% v. all other levels n/s 32 Trend in charitable $ reported n/s 1.62% doubles v. no Δ n/s n/s Death was expected n/s n/s v. unexpected n/s n/s Days between start of last illness and death n/s n/s + 1 more date n/s n/s Cause of death was cancer n/s n/s v. other cause n/s n/s Trend in volunteer hrs. reported n/s n/s n/s Ever diagnosed with cancer n/s v. not
Lone items Why not just use these numbers for our modeling? Because you can’t stack them. For example, once you know the average giving level and highest giving level, the lowest giving level isn’t that important anymore. If it was the only number you knew – by itself – it is useful. But, once you know the others, its not that useful.
Best groups of items Because we can’t stack the first results, we next ask: If we could only know 2 facts, what would be included in the best predictive model? If we could only know 3 facts … If we could only know 4 facts … If we could only know 5 facts … If we could only know 6 facts … If we could only know 7 facts … If we could only know 8 facts … If we could only know 9 facts … If we could only know 10 facts …
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Base rate 2.36% 1.47% 1.49% 1.11% -2.73% -4.70% -3.20% -3.12% -2.89% -3.03% % years giving 8.69% 8.85% 8.66% 6.40% 6.73% 5.96% 6.22% 6.16% 6.29% 5.68% No offspring 8.66% 8.55% 8.60% 8.36% 9.56% 8.05% 8.00% 7.92% 7.95% Highest giving $k 0.12% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% % years reporting trust 10.19% 10.24% 8.43% 9.45% 9.36% 9.39% 9.46% Female 2.45% 2.65% 2.00% 1.96% 1.90% 1.91% Last wealth (doubles) 0.07% 0.08% 0.08% 0.06% 0.06% Married -2.18% -2.23% -2.30% -2.26% Last giving $k 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% Wealth trend 1.76% 1.83% % years volunteering 2.41% Best 1 to 10-Item Models Other items valuable (p<.01) in larger models: Education level and Age at death
1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item base rate 4.03% 3.84% 2.96% 1.15% 0.79% 0.80% -7.90% -8.08% -8.22% -8.43% % years trust 15.08% 14.85% 14.85% 12.62% 12.86% 13.01% 12.33% 11.96% 11.67% 11.56% $k last giving 0.25% 0.24% 0.22% 0.22% 0.42% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41% No offspring 10.20% 10.32% 10.32% 10.26% 9.98% 9.94% 9.91% 9.97% % years giving 6.03% 5.21% 5.21% 5.16% 4.79% 4.54% 4.43% Volunteered in last report 3.62% 3.64% 3.94% 3.72% 3.64% 3.64% Average giving $k -0.21% -0.20% -0.20% -0.21% -0.20% Age at death 1.12% 1.14% 1.13% 1.11% Graduate education 3.42% 3.84% 3.86% Bachelor's degree 3.78% 3.83% Wealth trend 1.94% Best 1 to 10-Item with cancer diagnosis Other items valuable (p<.01) in larger models: None
Final test… Best additional item if all other facts known If you knew ALL OF THE OTHER facts about a person, which facts still have significant ADDED VALUE to predict the charitable estate transfers after death? Note: This is also useful to examine the issue of causation (i.e., is the fact relevant only because it is associated with something else like wealth or family structure?)
% years reporting funded trust 7.84% 12.30% 100% v. 0% Female 1.94% n/s v. male Married -1.99% n/s v. not Highest $ year of giving 0.08% n/s + $1000 No offspring exists 10.02% 13.23% Yes v. No % years giving $500+ 4.03% 5.32% 100% v. 0% $ of giving in last report 0.10% 0.41% + $1000 Bachelor's degree 2.91% 4.70% v. HS graduate Average volunteer hrs per year 1.61% n/s +100 hours Trend in reported wealth 1.80% n/s doubles v. no change Average reported wealth 0.54% n/s doubles Highest volunteer hours reported -0.56% n/s +100 hours Some (< 4 years) college 1.95% n/s v. HS graduate Graduate education 2.78% 4.56% v. HS graduate Highest reported wealth -0.44% n/s doubles Last volunteer hours reported -0.88% n/s +100 hours Items still significant (p<.01) controlling for all other items. Red examines only those previously diagnosed with cancer.
Predicting the dollars of charitable estate gifts Note: Dollar-based analyses are always dominated by a few major donors, so the results may be less reliable than the “yes” v. “no” question.
Different ways to compare the predictive power of each item Best lone item If you could only know ONE FACT about a person, what is the value of EACH FACT BY ITSELF? Best group of items If you could only know FIVE FACTS about a person, what are the FIVE MOST IMPORTANT facts to know? Best additional item If you knew ALL OF THE OTHER statistics about a person, what is the ADDED VALUE of knowing this ONE EXTRA fact?
lone items Rank Variable $ effects Comparing 1 1 Average $ giving per year $1,415 $1,188 + $1000 2 3 $ of giving in last report $1,089 $1,058 + $1000 3 2 Highest $ year of giving $562 $739 + $1000 4 4 Average reported wealth $15 $12 + $1000 5 6 Last reported wealth $7 $7 + $1000 6 5 Highest reported wealth $4 $5 + $1000 7 7 % years reporting funded trust $19,853 $23,845 100% v. 0% 8 11 Funded trust in last report $12,441 $10,020 Yes v. No 9 10 Gave $500+ in last report $7,946 $7,524 Yes v. No 10 9 % years giving $500+ $8,718 $9,394 100% v. 0% 11 15 No offspring exists $10,233 $7,815 Yes v. No 12 16 Living children at last report -$9,346 -$7,112 Yes v. No •Ranked by R2 where p<.01 •All decedents (10,233) •Those ever diagnosed with cancer (3,498)
lone items Rank Variable $ effects Comparing 13 8 Bachelor's degree $10,678 $16,733 v. all other levels 14 12 % of years reporting a will $5,047 $5,838 100% v. 0% 15 14 Will in last report $4,137 $4,832 Yes v. No 16 22 Grandchildren at last report -$4,870 n/s Yes v. No 17 21 Number of children -$678 n/s + 1 child 18 13 Graduate education $6,796 $9,268 v. all other levels 19 17 Not a high school graduate -$3,119 -$3,798 v. all other levels 20 20 Race: White $3,365 n/s v. other race •Ranked by R2 where p<.01 •All decedents (10,233) •Those ever diagnosed with cancer (3,498)
Best groups of items Because we can’t stack the first results, we next ask: If we could only know 2 facts, what would be included in the best predictive model? If we could only know 3 facts … If we could only know 4 facts … If we could only know 5 facts … If we could only know 6 facts … If we could only know 7 facts … If we could only know 8 facts … If we could only know 9 facts … If we could only know 10 facts …
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 base rate 1,499 703 -242 -199 -826 -561 -836 -636 -567 346 Average $k giving 1,415 1,344 1,340 1,024 1,004 1,078 1,056 1,044 1,244 1,250 Last reported wealth $k 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 5 No offspring exists 9,774 9,722 9,815 9,807 9,917 9,868 9,844 9,325 $k of giving in last report 336 341 317 301 293 286 286 % years reporting funded trust 9,960 11,125 10,049 10,014 10,096 10,195 Highest reported wealth $k -2 -4 -5 -5 -5 Average reported wealth $k 7 10 10 10 Lowest reported wealth $k -13 -13 -12 Highest $k year of giving -113 -114 Married -2,409 Best 1 to 10-Item Models Other items valuable (p<.01) in larger models: Education level and Any Gift at Last Report
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 base rate 1829 464 -107 -184 158 -488 -882 -687 -1016 -712 Average $k giving 1,189 1,159 1,113 1,613 1,653 1,658 1,635 1,842 1,866 1,870 % yrs with funded trust 15,793 13,326 12,947 14,463 14,266 13,821 14,156 13,353 13,811 Last wealth $k 3 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 $k of giving in last report -586 -563 -571 -551 -467 -462 -488 Highest reported wealth $k -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 No offspring exists 7,456 7,401 7,357 7,284 7,352 College degree (highest) 7,922 7,909 8,555 9,146 Highest $k year of giving -217 -239 -226 Graduate education 6,520 7,080 Lowest reported wealth $k -12 Note: The negative association with $ of giving in the last report appears odd. This suggests that once we know the average (higher is better), we are looking for those whose giving drops in the last survey before death. If we look at those with a cancer diagnosis who DID NOT die from cancer, or those who were never diagnosed with cancer, the relationship with last giving reverses and is strongly positive. This relationship is entirely driven by those who DIED OF CANCER. In that case, the drop in giving before death appears normal for estate donors. Remember also that a few large donors will strongly influence the dollar model, but not the earlier yes/no model. Other items valuable (p<.01) in larger models: none Best 1 to 10-Item with cancer diagnosis
Final test… Best additional item if all other facts known If you knew ALL OF THE OTHER facts about a person, which facts still have significant ADDED VALUE to predict the charitable estate transfers after death? Note: This is also useful to examine the issue of causation (i.e., is the fact relevant only because it is associated with something else like wealth or family structure?)
Average $k giving per year $1,264 $1,898 +$1,000 % years reporting funded trust $12,082 $13,233 100% v. 0% Last reported wealth $k $5 $7 +$1,000 Average reported wealth $k $9 n/s +$1,000 Highest reported wealth $k -$5 -$4 +$1,000 Lowest reported wealth $k -$14 -$14 +$1,000 $k of giving in last report $277 -$522 +$1,000 Married -$3,275 n/s v. Not Highest $k year of giving -$119 -$228 +$1,000 College degree (highest) $4,746 $8,742 v. All other levels Graduate education n/s $6,692 v. All other levels Items still significant (p<.01) controlling for all other items. Red examines only those previously diagnosed with cancer.
1. The right message 2. To the right people 3. At the right time
Factors predicting when charitable plans are ADDED
1.Approaching death (final pre- death survey) 2.Becoming a widow/widower 3.Diagnosed with cancer 4.Decline in self- reported health 5.Divorce 6.Diagnosed with heart problems 7.Diagnosed with a stroke 8.First grandchild 9.Increasing assets 10.Increasing charitable giving
Factors predicting when charitable plans are DROPPED
1.Decline in self- reported health 2.Approaching death (final pre- death survey) 3.Becoming a widow/widower 4.Divorce 5.Diagnosed with cancer 6.Diagnosed with heart problems 7.Diagnosed with a stroke 8.First grandchild 9.First child 10.Exiting homeownership
1.Death feels near •Final pre-death survey •Decline in self-reported health •Diagnosis with cancer •Diagnosis with heart disease •Diagnosis with stroke •Becoming a widow or widower 2.Family structure changes •Divorce •First child •First grandchild •Becoming a widow or widower Plans destabilize when
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 8-10 years premortem 6-8 years pre-mortem 4-6 years pre-mortem 2-4 years pre-mortem 0-2 years pre-mortem Timing of Lifetime Surveys Lifetime giving and volunteering by estate donors Giving ($500+) Volunteering Bequest givers may not be your donors, but many used to be
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95+ Cumulative percentage of charitable bequest dollars by donor age at death Over 80% of charitable bequest dollars come from decedents aged 80+
Half of all charitable bequest dollars came from decedents this age and older… Current U.S. study: Age 89 New Australian study (5% sample of national probate files): Age 90 Remember that most realized charitable bequests are added within 5 years of death
Age at Will Signing (by share of total charitable bequest $ transferred) 76% 11% 13% 80s+ 70s pre-70 Australian data from: Baker, Christopher (October, 2013) Encouraging Charitable Bequests by Australians . Asia-Pacific Centre for Social Investment & Philanthropy - Swinburne University
Most realized charitable plans (shown in red) added within 5 years of death Total Number Total $
Although most charitable plans were added within 5 years of death, ONE longer- term plan was worth FOUR made in the last two years.
A 5% national sample of 2012 probate records in Australia showed an estimated •31% of charitable wills were signed within 2 years of death •60% were signed within 5 years of death Baker, Christopher (October, 2013) Encouraging Charitable Bequests by Australians . Asia-Pacific Centre for Social Investment & Philanthropy - Swinburne University
Most still report charitable plans 10 years later 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 1993/4 to 2004 1995/6 to 2006 1998 to 2008 2000 to 2010 2002 to 2012 10-Year Retention of Charitable Estate Component age 70+ age 50-69
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Charitable Plan Loss Trajectory Among those still alive and answering the question who reported having a charitable component in BOTH 1998 & 2000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Give-Bequest Gap All 50+ Older adults are initially more resistant to bequest giving but are more responsive to bequest giving marketing { { { { { { { { }
Organizational age helps (perceived stability and donor age) % of gift income from bequests and founding date of UK cancer charities among Top 100 UK fundraisers (Pharoah, 2010) Data from Pharoah (2010) Cancer Research UK 42.6% (1902) Macmillan Cancer Support 37.9% (1911) Marie Curie Cancer 31.0% (1948) CLIC Sargent Cancer Care for Children 18.6% (1968) Breast Cancer Care 2.1% (1972) Breakthrough Breast Cancer 1.0% (1991) Walk the Walk Worldwide 0.0% (1998)
Many of our customers like to leave money to charity in their will. Are there any causes you’re passionate about? Would you like to leave any money to charity in your will? No reference to charity Charitable bequest decisions are often unstable and easily influenced Charitable plans among 1,000 testators Charitable plans among 1,000 testators Charitable plans among 1,000 testators
The score doesn’t count until the clock runs out You can’t sit out the fourth quarter and expect to win
1. The right message 2. To the right people 3. At the right time Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research charities

More Related Content

PDF
Top 10 legacy fundraising strategies from scientific research: National data ...
Russell James
 
PPTX
Inside the Mind of the Bequest Donor
Russell James
 
PPTX
Using donor surveys in planned giving
Russell James
 
PDF
The Statistics & Psychology of Baby Boomer Lifetime & Legacy Giving
Russell James
 
PDF
Using "natural philanthropy" in fundraising
Russell James
 
PPTX
Charitable Bequest Demographics
Russell James
 
PPTX
Charitable Bequest Decision-Making
Russell James
 
PPTX
Charitable Bequest Demographics
Russell James
 
Top 10 legacy fundraising strategies from scientific research: National data ...
Russell James
 
Inside the Mind of the Bequest Donor
Russell James
 
Using donor surveys in planned giving
Russell James
 
The Statistics & Psychology of Baby Boomer Lifetime & Legacy Giving
Russell James
 
Using "natural philanthropy" in fundraising
Russell James
 
Charitable Bequest Demographics
Russell James
 
Charitable Bequest Decision-Making
Russell James
 
Charitable Bequest Demographics
Russell James
 

What's hot (16)

PDF
Major gifts of assets in the aftermath of Covid-19
Russell James
 
PDF
Inside the mind of the bequest donor
Russell James
 
PPTX
The hidden code behind death-related financial decisions
Russell James
 
PDF
Why cash is not king in fundraising: Results from 1 million nonprofit tax ret...
Russell James
 
PPTX
Planned Giving Myths
Russell James
 
PDF
10 Strategies for Post COVID-19 fundraising in complex and major gifts
Russell James
 
PPTX
Planned Giving Overview
Russell James
 
PPT
Tax policy and charitable giving
Angie Eikenberry
 
PPTX
AdNet Days 2014; The Neuroscience of Philanthropy
lpomara
 
PDF
Gender and Games - IFPRI Gender Methods Seminar
IFPRI Gender
 
PDF
O Behave! Issue 3 (June Edition)
#ogilvychange
 
PDF
#DonorLove #GongShow: Fundraising, Vulnerability and Awkwardness in the Era o...
Bloomerang
 
PDF
Mythbusters IFC14
Damian O'Broin
 
KEY
Social Influence
Jerry Smith
 
PDF
If You DonorLove Someone, Set Them Free
Damian O'Broin
 
PDF
Rising Waters, Difficult Decisions: Findings from the Calgary flood project
glennmcgillivray
 
Major gifts of assets in the aftermath of Covid-19
Russell James
 
Inside the mind of the bequest donor
Russell James
 
The hidden code behind death-related financial decisions
Russell James
 
Why cash is not king in fundraising: Results from 1 million nonprofit tax ret...
Russell James
 
Planned Giving Myths
Russell James
 
10 Strategies for Post COVID-19 fundraising in complex and major gifts
Russell James
 
Planned Giving Overview
Russell James
 
Tax policy and charitable giving
Angie Eikenberry
 
AdNet Days 2014; The Neuroscience of Philanthropy
lpomara
 
Gender and Games - IFPRI Gender Methods Seminar
IFPRI Gender
 
O Behave! Issue 3 (June Edition)
#ogilvychange
 
#DonorLove #GongShow: Fundraising, Vulnerability and Awkwardness in the Era o...
Bloomerang
 
Mythbusters IFC14
Damian O'Broin
 
Social Influence
Jerry Smith
 
If You DonorLove Someone, Set Them Free
Damian O'Broin
 
Rising Waters, Difficult Decisions: Findings from the Calgary flood project
glennmcgillivray
 
Ad

Viewers also liked (20)

PPTX
Ip-telephone
zergusya
 
PDF
Prezentacija mr Maja Petrovic
Maja Petrovic
 
PPTX
Translation and corpus linguistics
maarudneva
 
PPTX
Remainder interests in homes and farms
Russell James
 
PPTX
Income limitations on charitable deductions
Russell James
 
PPTX
Valuing charitable gifts of property
Russell James
 
PPTX
Introduction to charitable gift annuities
Russell James
 
PPTX
Documenting charitable gifts
Russell James
 
PDF
Life insurance in charitable planning
Russell James
 
PDF
MarketSmart Words That Work: The Phrases That Encourage Planned Giving
MarketSmart
 
PPTX
A super simple introduction to taxes
Russell James
 
PPTX
What does your language reveal about your charity?
CharityComms
 
PPTX
Presentations from IPA Modern Briefing from 3rd July 2012
The_IPA
 
PDF
Roundtable on the Future of Day Services for Older People
Anna Mouser
 
PPTX
Identifying Prominent Life Events on Twitter - K-Cap 2015
Tom Dickinson
 
PPTX
ClimateMeme1
B. Laszlo Karafiath, PhD
 
PDF
The faces of your brand: your people
CharityComms
 
PPTX
Telephoning English
Vansight
 
PDF
Engaging donors and users online - Nordic summit of Diabetes foundations June...
Beate Sørum
 
PPTX
Counting Revocable Planned Gifts in Fundraising - Return from Fantasy Island
Russell James
 
Ip-telephone
zergusya
 
Prezentacija mr Maja Petrovic
Maja Petrovic
 
Translation and corpus linguistics
maarudneva
 
Remainder interests in homes and farms
Russell James
 
Income limitations on charitable deductions
Russell James
 
Valuing charitable gifts of property
Russell James
 
Introduction to charitable gift annuities
Russell James
 
Documenting charitable gifts
Russell James
 
Life insurance in charitable planning
Russell James
 
MarketSmart Words That Work: The Phrases That Encourage Planned Giving
MarketSmart
 
A super simple introduction to taxes
Russell James
 
What does your language reveal about your charity?
CharityComms
 
Presentations from IPA Modern Briefing from 3rd July 2012
The_IPA
 
Roundtable on the Future of Day Services for Older People
Anna Mouser
 
Identifying Prominent Life Events on Twitter - K-Cap 2015
Tom Dickinson
 
ClimateMeme1
B. Laszlo Karafiath, PhD
 
The faces of your brand: your people
CharityComms
 
Telephoning English
Vansight
 
Engaging donors and users online - Nordic summit of Diabetes foundations June...
Beate Sørum
 
Counting Revocable Planned Gifts in Fundraising - Return from Fantasy Island
Russell James
 
Ad

Similar to Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research (20)

PPTX
Organ donation, ethnicity and the negotiation of death: ethnographic insights...
British Sociological Association
 
PPT
Gabriel Danovitch - USA - Monday 28 - Alternatives to increase the number of...
incucai_isodp
 
PDF
David R. Williams, "Black Lives Matter for Health... and for All of US"
The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics
 
PDF
Worlds Of Autism Across The Spectrum Of Neurological Difference 1st Edition J...
elgobzedek
 
PDF
Worlds Of Autism Across The Spectrum Of Neurological Difference 1st Edition J...
elgobzedek
 
PDF
Worlds of autism across the spectrum of neurological difference 1st Edition J...
dottsfobil
 
PDF
A Living Tribute: John Weeks -- The Integrator
FON Therapeutics, Inc.
 
PDF
(Ebook) The Alzheimer Conundrum: Entanglements of Dementia and Aging by Marga...
hugaraleen2w
 
PDF
May 2017: Outreach Newsletter
Westerville Library
 
PDF
Healers Extraordinary clinicians at work 1st Edition David Schenck
larseyivo
 
DOCX
Steph The Fore people began to die of a disease, and the diseas.docx
whitneyleman54422
 
PDF
How to write an outline for a persuasive speech
Laila Khalidah M Za'ba
 
PPTX
Creative writing & Patient Support Groups
Graham Atherton
 
PDF
The Power of the Heart in Philanthropy & Volunteerism
Gary L. Bukowski MA,CFRE VP for Advancement
 
PPSX
Veterans and public libraries in san diego
San Diego Public Library
 
PPTX
Presentation1
lkraft65
 
PDF
The demographics of charitable estate planning
Russell James
 
PDF
The Age Of Immunology Conceiving A Future In An Alienating World 1st Edition ...
pleindjucic
 
DOCX
YourGenes,YourChoicesby Catherine BakerExplorin.docx
danielfoster65629
 
PDF
Families & Friend of Murder Victims, INC (FFMV)
Rose Madsen
 
Organ donation, ethnicity and the negotiation of death: ethnographic insights...
British Sociological Association
 
Gabriel Danovitch - USA - Monday 28 - Alternatives to increase the number of...
incucai_isodp
 
David R. Williams, "Black Lives Matter for Health... and for All of US"
The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics
 
Worlds Of Autism Across The Spectrum Of Neurological Difference 1st Edition J...
elgobzedek
 
Worlds Of Autism Across The Spectrum Of Neurological Difference 1st Edition J...
elgobzedek
 
Worlds of autism across the spectrum of neurological difference 1st Edition J...
dottsfobil
 
A Living Tribute: John Weeks -- The Integrator
FON Therapeutics, Inc.
 
(Ebook) The Alzheimer Conundrum: Entanglements of Dementia and Aging by Marga...
hugaraleen2w
 
May 2017: Outreach Newsletter
Westerville Library
 
Healers Extraordinary clinicians at work 1st Edition David Schenck
larseyivo
 
Steph The Fore people began to die of a disease, and the diseas.docx
whitneyleman54422
 
How to write an outline for a persuasive speech
Laila Khalidah M Za'ba
 
Creative writing & Patient Support Groups
Graham Atherton
 
The Power of the Heart in Philanthropy & Volunteerism
Gary L. Bukowski MA,CFRE VP for Advancement
 
Veterans and public libraries in san diego
San Diego Public Library
 
Presentation1
lkraft65
 
The demographics of charitable estate planning
Russell James
 
The Age Of Immunology Conceiving A Future In An Alienating World 1st Edition ...
pleindjucic
 
YourGenes,YourChoicesby Catherine BakerExplorin.docx
danielfoster65629
 
Families & Friend of Murder Victims, INC (FFMV)
Rose Madsen
 

More from Russell James (14)

PDF
Charitable bequest fundraising: New results from 100 years of national data
Russell James
 
PDF
Top 10 charitable planning strategies for financial advisors 2020
Russell James
 
PDF
Natural philanthropy: How the natural origins of donor motivations drive powe...
Russell James
 
PDF
Top 10 charitable planning strategies for financial advisors under the new ta...
Russell James
 
PDF
Top 10 charitable planning strategies updated for the new tax law
Russell James
 
PDF
Planned Giving Words that Work Part II
Russell James
 
PDF
Church seminar in charitable estate planning
Russell James
 
PDF
Ponzis, Pyramids, and Bubbles: An introduction to financial fraud
Russell James
 
PPTX
Private foundations and donor advised funds
Russell James
 
PPTX
The secret to understanding planned giving
Russell James
 
PPTX
Bargain sale gifts
Russell James
 
PPTX
Taxation of charitable gift annuities
Russell James
 
PPTX
Charitable remainder trusts
Russell James
 
PPTX
Charitable Lead Trusts
Russell James
 
Charitable bequest fundraising: New results from 100 years of national data
Russell James
 
Top 10 charitable planning strategies for financial advisors 2020
Russell James
 
Natural philanthropy: How the natural origins of donor motivations drive powe...
Russell James
 
Top 10 charitable planning strategies for financial advisors under the new ta...
Russell James
 
Top 10 charitable planning strategies updated for the new tax law
Russell James
 
Planned Giving Words that Work Part II
Russell James
 
Church seminar in charitable estate planning
Russell James
 
Ponzis, Pyramids, and Bubbles: An introduction to financial fraud
Russell James
 
Private foundations and donor advised funds
Russell James
 
The secret to understanding planned giving
Russell James
 
Bargain sale gifts
Russell James
 
Taxation of charitable gift annuities
Russell James
 
Charitable remainder trusts
Russell James
 
Charitable Lead Trusts
Russell James
 

Recently uploaded (20)

PPT
MENTAL HEALTH - NOTES.ppt for nursing students
iloveonlyfriday
 
PPTX
Note on Abortion.pptx for the student note
MikeMalou
 
PPTX
Important Obstetric Emergency that must be recognised
khusyairi0
 
PPTX
Cardiovascular - antihypertensive medical backgrounds
HaniAlzoubi1
 
PPT
genitourinary-cancers_1.ppt Nursing care of clients with GU cancer
MohammedGazo
 
PDF
focused on the development and application of glycoHILIC, pepHILIC, and comm...
ajdvpmbbn
 
PPTX
History and examination of abdomen, & pelvis .pptx
drmariaalrafi
 
PDF
Copy of OB - Exam #2 Study Guide. pdf
mikolwarschaw
 
PPTX
CHEM421 - Biochemistry (Chapter 1 - Introduction)
ShahmirSiddiqui
 
DOC
Adobe Premiere Pro CC Crack With Serial Key Full Free Download 2025
muhammadsharaz350
 
PDF
Medical Evidence in the Criminal Justice Delivery System in.pdf
academicstrivee
 
PDF
Therapeutic Potential of Citrus Flavonoids in Metabolic Inflammation and Ins...
publication11
 
PPTX
Acid Base Disorders educational power point.pptx
YordanosAyele3
 
PPTX
ACID BASE management, base deficit correction
bhoomikagowda71
 
PDF
Handout_ NURS 220 Topic 10-Abnormal Pregnancy.pdf
zuluuke
 
PPTX
neonatal infection(7392992y282939y5.pptx
kanuni1
 
PPTX
CME 2 Acute Chest Pain preentation for education
KhausalyaAndy
 
PPTX
JUVENILE NASOPHARYNGEAL ANGIOFIBROMA.pptx
rounakuser
 
PPTX
Stimulation Protocols for IUI | Dr. Laxmi Shrikhande
Dr.Laxmi Agrawal Shrikhande
 
PPTX
anal canal anatomy with illustrations...
akashdeepsohisge
 
MENTAL HEALTH - NOTES.ppt for nursing students
iloveonlyfriday
 
Note on Abortion.pptx for the student note
MikeMalou
 
Important Obstetric Emergency that must be recognised
khusyairi0
 
Cardiovascular - antihypertensive medical backgrounds
HaniAlzoubi1
 
genitourinary-cancers_1.ppt Nursing care of clients with GU cancer
MohammedGazo
 
focused on the development and application of glycoHILIC, pepHILIC, and comm...
ajdvpmbbn
 
History and examination of abdomen, & pelvis .pptx
drmariaalrafi
 
Copy of OB - Exam #2 Study Guide. pdf
mikolwarschaw
 
CHEM421 - Biochemistry (Chapter 1 - Introduction)
ShahmirSiddiqui
 
Adobe Premiere Pro CC Crack With Serial Key Full Free Download 2025
muhammadsharaz350
 
Medical Evidence in the Criminal Justice Delivery System in.pdf
academicstrivee
 
Therapeutic Potential of Citrus Flavonoids in Metabolic Inflammation and Ins...
publication11
 
Acid Base Disorders educational power point.pptx
YordanosAyele3
 
ACID BASE management, base deficit correction
bhoomikagowda71
 
Handout_ NURS 220 Topic 10-Abnormal Pregnancy.pdf
zuluuke
 
neonatal infection(7392992y282939y5.pptx
kanuni1
 
CME 2 Acute Chest Pain preentation for education
KhausalyaAndy
 
JUVENILE NASOPHARYNGEAL ANGIOFIBROMA.pptx
rounakuser
 
Stimulation Protocols for IUI | Dr. Laxmi Shrikhande
Dr.Laxmi Agrawal Shrikhande
 
anal canal anatomy with illustrations...
akashdeepsohisge
 

Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research

  • 1. Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research Prof. Russell James Texas Tech University
  • 2. 1. The right message 2. To the right people 3. At the right time Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research charities
  • 3. 1. The right message Visualized Autobiography Family Emotion Life Stories Tribute Bequests Theory Research Practical Results
  • 4. Research Bequest decision-making emphasizes “visualized autobiography” brain regions Visualized Autobiography
  • 5. * weighted nationally representative 2006 sample from Health and Retirement Study Over-50 US Donors ($500+) with Charitable Plans, 9.4% Over-50 US Donors ($500+) With No Charitable Plans, 90.6% Bequest Giving is Different
  • 6. Charitable bequest decision- making v. giving or volunteering decision- making
  • 7. Contrast Brain Region MNI co-ord inates Peak p FWE Clust-er p FWE (1) Beq> Give Lingual Gyrus -2, -78, -2 .004 .000 Precuneus 26, -66, 42 .102 .009 (2) Beq> Vol Lingual Gyrus 2, -80, - 4 .007 .000 Precuneus 30, -66, 40 .180 .004 Precentral Gyrus -34, -3, 36 .397 .001 (3) Beq> (Give+ Vol) Lingual Gyrus 0, -78, - 4 .001 .000 Precuneus 26, -66, 42 .007 .001
  • 8. Visualized autobiography visualization + 3rd person perspective on self lingual gyrus is part of the visual system, damage can result in losing the ability to dream precuneus has been called “the mind’s eye,” used in taking a 3rd person perspective on one’s self
  • 9. In a study where older adults were shown photographs from across their life, precuneus and lingual gyrus activation occurred when they were able to vividly relive events in the photo, but not where scenes were only vaguely familiar (Gilboa, et al., 2004) Visualized Autobiography In other studies, both regions simultaneously activated by mentally “traveling back in time”(Viard, et al., 2007) or recalling autobiographical personal events Denkova (2006)
  • 10. “when discussing which charities they had chosen to remember, there was a clear link with the life narratives of many respondents” Life stories Summarizing a series of interviews with planned donors, Dr. Claire Routley wrote…
  • 11. Research Bequest decision-making emphasizes “visualized autobiography” brain regions Visualized Autobiography
  • 12. Research Visualized Autobiography Application Life Stories Tell life stories of donors who will live beyond their death through their bequest giving
  • 13. Tested different marketing messages with 11 groups, 4,560 total, 40 charities
  • 14. Organization BEQ Give Amer Cancer Society 26.79 36.77 The Red Cross 25.93 41.12 ASPCA 24.18 33.77 Habitat for Humanity 24.01 34.90 Amer Heart Association 23.17 33.95 Natl Cancer Coalition 22.56 34.54 Breast Cancer Res Fnd 22.53 33.93 Natl Breast Cancer Fnd 22.43 33.48 The Amer Humane Assn 22.23 33.91 The Alzheimer's Found 21.40 32.00 Susan G. Komen Br Canc 21.39 29.22 Dana Farber Cancer Inst 21.13 29.63 American Diabetes Assn 20.84 32.54 World Wildlife Fund 20.82 29.08 Guide Dogs for the Blind 20.80 31.46 The Alzheimer's Assn 20.80 31.86 American Lung Assn 20.78 31.40 MD Anderson Cancer Cr 20.59 30.53 UNICEF 20.37 32.31 The Salvation Army 19.98 31.44 Organization BEQ Give Wildlife Conserv Soc 19.90 29.26 Goodwill Industries 19.65 34.42 Big Brothrs/Big Sisters 19.47 30.49 The United Way 18.97 28.97 Joslin Diabetes Center 18.91 29.18 Canine Compan for In 18.90 29.67 Fnd Fightng Blindness 18.77 28.37 AIDS Project LA 17.71 25.64 Prevent Blindss Amer 17.51 28.32 San Fran AIDS Found 17.39 25.49 Nat Audubon Society 17.33 24.24 YMCA 17.16 28.12 Boys and Girls Clubs 17.14 30.10 Girl Scouts 16.71 31.27 YWCA 16.21 24.42 Amer Indian College F 15.97 22.33 CARE 15.86 24.69 Boy Scouts 14.51 23.56 United Negro Coll Fnd 14.13 21.90 Ducks Unlimited 13.60 19.49
  • 15. 2 MD Anderson NatCancCoalition NatBreastCF Komen Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap All 27.73 17.55 10.18 31.44 19.56 11.88 33.33 19.87 13.47 31.01 19.97 11.04 Femle 27.06 14.81 12.25 30.63 17.27 13.36 34.95 19.52 15.43 33.09 19.52 13.57 Male 28.88 22.29 6.59 32.85 23.52 9.33 30.53 20.46 10.06 27.40 20.74 6.65 50+ 20.59 11.33 9.27 27.08 9.94 17.14 26.41 10.83 15.58 28.72 13.09 15.63 1 Dana Farber ACS BreastCRF ALL Cancer Orgs Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap All 26.73 17.08 9.65 37.70 24.47 13.23 33.69 21.10 12.59 31.66 19.94 11.72 Femle 26.06 15.34 10.72 37.66 22.85 14.81 34.83 20.43 14.41 32.04 18.53 13.51 Male 27.89 20.07 7.82 37.77 27.25 10.52 31.73 22.25 9.47 31.00 22.37 8.64 50+ 20.59 9.14 11.44 34.46 16.63 17.83 25.41 11.62 13.79 26.18 11.80 14.38 Individual Cancer Organizations
  • 16. Presented formal evidence on the tendency of heirs to quickly spend inherited assets and the reasons for this rapid expenditure
  • 17. Presented formal evidence on the widespread approval and acceptability of leaving a bequest gift to charity as an American social norm
  • 18. Message Beq Gap Cancer 2 Cancer1 None 10.24 11.64 11.82 Spendthrift Heirs Evidence 9.42 11.16 American Social Norms Evidence 8.80 8.90 Both 8.02 10.12
  • 19. Deceased donor stories (with new images or pure text)
  • 20. Message Beq Gap Cancer 2 Cancer1 None 10.24 11.64 11.82 Spendthrift Heirs Evidence 9.42 11.16 American Social Norms Evidence 8.80 8.90 Both 8.02 10.12 Deceased Bequest Donor Stories 6.18 8.41 8.86
  • 21. Living donor stories (otherwise identical) Ex: “School janitor Lester Holmes died in 1992” becomes “School janitor Lester Holmes signed his will today”
  • 22. Message Beq Gap Cancer 2 Cancer1 None 10.24 11.64 11.82 Spendthrift Heirs Evidence 9.42 11.16 American Social Norms Evidence 8.80 8.90 Both 8.02 10.12 Deceased Bequest Donor Stories 6.18 8.41 8.86 Living Bequest Donor Stories 4.32 4.62 6.37 Both 6.00 6.43 8.44
  • 23. Message All Gap MD And Dana Fa None 10.24 10.18 9.65 Spendthrift Heirs Evidence 9.42 9.44 American Social Norms Evidence 8.80 6.75 Both 8.02 7.87 Deceased Bequest Donor Stories 6.18 8.46 5.97 Living Bequest Donor Stories 4.32 3.43 3.89 Both 6.00 5.52 6.85
  • 24. Which of the four message types worked best for which of the 40 charities?
  • 25. Living donor stories outperformed all other messages for 40 out of 40 charities tested
  • 26. Which charities saw the biggest improvement from donor stories?
  • 27. Largest improvement •Wildlife Conservation Society •World Wildlife Federation •Canine Companions for the Blind •Guide Dogs for the Blind •Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America The stories featured gifts benefiting wildlife, dogs, and youth and two unrepresented categories (symphony and hospital chapel) The bequest donor concept helped all charities, but the story cause still mattered
  • 28. With new images or pure text (no significant difference) Effect of More Stories 1st 4 Stories: Janitor, pet groomer, carpenter, symphony patron 2nd 3 Stories: fisherman, coach, physician Message Give-Beq Gap Gap 50+ Gap Male Gap Female None 10.2 14.0 7.7 11.7 Deceased 1st 4 stories 6.8 7.5 5.5 7.6 Deceased All 7 stories 6.6 7.5 5.4 7.4 Mixed Dec/Liv 7 stories 6.0 7.2 5.0 6.6 Living 1st 4 stories 4.8 5.7 3.9 5.4 Living All 7 stories 4.1 2.5 3.0 4.7
  • 29. Although numerical ability declines with age, verbal knowledge does not Park, et al (2002) Psychology and Aging, 17(2), 299-320
  • 30. Research Visualized Autobiography Application Life Stories Tell life stories of donors who will live beyond their death through their bequest giving
  • 31. Research Bequests to friends and family engage memory and emotion brain regions more than charitable bequests Family Emotion
  • 32. New experiment •Increased realism of decision-making •Comparing different types of bequest decision (not bequest giving v. current giving)
  • 33. At the end of this session, a legally valid last will and testament will be mailed to you at no charge. To help you design your plan, we need to ask about some of your desires and preferences… (in varied order) About what percentage of your estate would you like to go to any charities?... friends who are not family members?... family members? Are there any specific personal property items you would like to leave to any charities? …friends who are not family members? …family members? Would you like to leave any specific dollar amount cash gifts (e.g., $250) to any charities? …friends who are not family members? ….family members?
  • 34. Bequests to friends and family (v. charitable bequests) more heavily involve brain regions of 1. Emotion (mid/posterior cingulate cortex; insula) 2. Memory (hippocampus) This difference was stronger for females than males. See Maddock, Garrett & Buonocore, 2003
  • 35. Research Bequests to friends and family engage memory and emotion brain regions more than charitable bequests Family Emotion
  • 36. Tribute Bequests Remind donors of life story connections of friends/family with the charity/cause and provide tribute bequest opportunities Research Family Emotion Application
  • 37. Female, 63 widowed ‘The reason I selected Help the Aged...it was after my mother died...And I just thought – she’d been in a care home for probably three or four years. And I just wanted to help the elderly...I’d also support things like Cancer Research, because people I’ve known have died...An animal charity as well, I had a couple of cats.’ Bequest charity representing loved ones “‘[In my will I have a gift to] the Cancer Research. My father died of cancer and so I have supported them ever since he died.’ Male, 89 married (Routley, 2011, p. 220-221)
  • 38. Since many charitable bequest gifts appear to be in honor of a loved one, what happens when we specifically ask about making a charitable bequest honoring a friend or family member?
  • 39. Bequests to friends and family (v. charitable bequests) more heavily involve brain regions of Emotion (mid/posterior cingulate cortex; insula) and Memory (hippocampus) Can a charitable bequest represent a loved one, and thereby connect with this memory and emotion?
  • 40. Do you have a deceased friend or deceased family member who would have appreciated your support of an International relief organization such as CARE or UNICEF? Also tested for living friend or family member Alzheimer’s The Alzheimer's Association, The Alzheimer's Foundation Diabetes Joslin Diabetes Center, The American Diabetes Association Wild Birds Preservation National Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited Wildlife World Wildlife Fund, Wildlife Conservation Society Minority College Fund United Negro College Fund, American Indian College Fund Blindness related nonprofit Foundation Fighting Blindness, Prevent Blindness America Youth-related charitable Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America, Boys and Girls Clubs of America AIDS research and care San Francisco AIDS Foundation, AIDS Project Los Angeles Animal welfare American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The American Humane Association International relief UNICEF, Care Cancer research American Cancer Society, National Cancer Coalition, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Dana Farber Cancer Institute Guide dogs Guide Dogs for the Blind, Canine Companions for Independence Breast cancer research Breast Cancer Research Foundation, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation If so, please state your relationship to them and write at least 25 words describing their interest in or connection with this cause. If you signed a will in the next 3 months, what is the likelihood you might leave a BEQUEST gift honoring a living [deceased] friend or family member to _____ Testing the tribute bequest
  • 41. Tribute charitable bequest decisions (with family connections) create more neural activation (consistent with processing memory and emotion) than standard charitable bequest decisions tribute bequest-fix> initial bequest-fix initial bequest-fix> tribute bequest-fix
  • 42. Change in charitable bequest intention for those with family/friend connection Total Age 50+ Male Female Memorial reminder +14.0 +14.0 +13.5 +14.0 Living reminder +9.2 +9.3 +7.7 +9.9 Connection reminder + tribute bequest offer increases interest Average share with family/friend connections to each cause Total Age 50+ Male Female Memorial reminder 22.1% 27.1% 19.5% 23.6% Living reminder 34.2% 36.1% 30.4% 36.6%
  • 43. Change in charitable bequest intention for those with family/friend connection Total Age 50+ Male Female Memorial reminder +11.7 +12.2 +11.0 +12.1 Memorial reminder (after other messages) +15.0 +14.0 +15.3 +14.8 Living reminder +9.4 +11.3 +6.4 +10.0 Living reminder (after other messages) +9.2 +9.1 +7.9 +9.9 Connection reminder + tribute bequest offer can be “stacked” with other bequest messages
  • 44. Giving – Tribute Bequest Total Age 50+ Male Female Memorial reminder (after living/ deceased stories) -4.2 -1.7 -6.5 -3.1 Living reminder (after living/ deceased stories) -3.3 -2.3 -2.4 -3.7 Donor stories + tribute reminder eliminates giving-bequest intention gap for those with friend/family connections DONOR STORY TRIBUTE REMINDER DONOR STORY DONOR STORY
  • 45. Do tribute bequests work better/worse for different types of organizations?
  • 46. Memorial Living Diabetes 16.9 Wild birds 12.8 Alzheimer’s 16.0 Diabetes 12.7 AIDS 14.1 AIDS 11.4 Minority college fund 14.0 Alzheimer’s 11.2 Cancer 12.6 Int’l relief 10.4 Breast canc. 11.7 Blindness 10.3 Wild birds 11.1 Pets 9.5 Int’l relief 10.9 Cancer 9.4 Pets 10.6 Guide dogs 9.3 Blindness 10.2 Breast canc. 8.6 Guide dogs 9.2 Minority college fund 7.4 Youth 7.7 Wildlife 6.1 Wildlife 7.1 Youth 5.2 Impact Change in charitable bequest intention for those with family/friend connection Frequency Likelihood of reporting a family or friend connection with the cause Memorial Living Cancer 46% Pets 56% Breast canc. 39% Breast canc. 54% Alzheimer’s 29% Cancer 49% Diabetes 28% Wildlife 41% Pets 28% Diabetes 38% Wildlife 18% Youth 37% Guide dogs 15% Alzheimer’s 30% Youth 15% Guide dogs 23% Int’l relief 14% Wild birds 18% AIDS 11% Minority college fund 18% Wild birds 10% AIDS 17% Blindness 9% Int’l relief 16% Minority college fund 8% Blindness 15% Impact and frequency vary with cause
  • 47. Do memorial or tribute bequests work better or worse for different family members?
  • 48. Tribute bequests are more attractive for ascendants, less for descendants or friends Family and friend words associated with interest in a tribute bequest (ranked by strength of correlation) Positive Non-significant Negative grandmother +7.5 dad girl -12.8 family +3.5 children boy -13.7 mother +2.4 uncle kids -8.4 aunt +2.6 sister girls -12.1 grandfather +2.7 mom friends -3.5 husband +3.6 wife boys -11.6 cousin brother -6.4 parents daughter -6.1 son child -5.8 father friend -1.4
  • 49. Simple language and starting with honor Interested Now 23% 16% 13% Will Never Be Interested 17% 21% 21% 2014 Survey, 1,961 Respondents, Groups B/A/H Honor a friend or family member by making a memorial gift to charity in my last will & testament Make a bequest gift to charity in my last will & testament in honor of a friend or family member who appreciated the charity's work Make a bequest gift to charity in my last will & testament in honor of a friend or family member who was passionate about the charity's work
  • 50. Simple implementations Samples courtesy of Phyllis Freedman, President of SmartGiving and “The Planned Giving Blogger” to “honor a friend or family member by making a memorial gift to charity in my last will & testament” In a 2014 survey, 1 in 4 increased their intention to leave a charitable bequest when given the option
  • 51. Tribute Bequests Remind donors of life story connections of friends/family with the charity/cause and provide tribute bequest opportunities Research Family Emotion Application
  • 52. 1. The right message 2. To the right people 3. At the right time
  • 53. Predicting if any charitable estate gift occurs at death
  • 54. Different ways to compare the predictive power of each item Best lone item If you could only know ONE FACT about a person, what is the value of EACH FACT BY ITSELF? Best group of items If you could only know FIVE FACTS about a person, what are the FIVE MOST IMPORTANT facts to know? Best additional item If you knew ALL OF THE OTHER statistics about a person, what is the ADDED VALUE of knowing this ONE EXTRA fact?
  • 55. lone items Rank Variable Likelihood changes by __ percentage points Comparing 1 3 % years giving $500+ 8.69% 8.74% 100% v. 0% 2 1 % years reporting funded trust 13.99% 16.69% 100% v. 0% 3 5 Highest $ year of giving 0.15% 0.16% + $1000 4 6 Average $ giving per year 0.29% 0.21% + $1000 5 8 Gave $500+ in last report 6.41% 6.29% Yes v. No 6 2 $ of giving in last report 0.24% 0.28% + $1000 7 4 Funded trust in last report 9.37% 10.80% Yes v. No 8 7 No offspring exists 8.21% 10.42% Yes v. No 9 11 % of years reporting a will 5.22% 5.41% 100% v. 0% 10 16 Last reported wealth 0.14% 0.12% doubles 11 9 Living children at last report -7.36% -9.33% Yes v. No 12 10 Average reported wealth 0.20% 0.24% doubles 13 12 Highest reported wealth 0.19% 0.22% doubles 14 14 Will in last report 3.97% 4.21% Yes v. No 15 20 Not a high school graduate -3.60% -3.68% v. all other levels 16 13 % years volunteering 100+ hrs 6.21% 7.01% 100% v. 0% 17 15 Grandchildren at last report -3.77% -5.04% Yes v. No •Ranked by R2 where p<.05 •All decedents (10,233) •Those ever diagnosed with cancer (3,498)
  • 56. Reported wills are often unused 16% 38% 10% 19% 11% 6% Distributed estates where decedent reported having a written and witnessed will (n=6,063) No will found Will probated Unprobated will: nothing much of value Unprobated will: estate otherwise distributed Unprobated will: trust distributed Unprobated will: other
  • 57. Funded trusts more likely to work 75% 5% 10% 4% 2% 4% Distributed estates where decedent reported having a funded trust (n=913) Funded trust exists No documents Will probated Unprobated will: Otherwise divided Will - Nothing much of value Will - Unknown
  • 58. lone items Rank Variable Likelihood changes by __ percentage points Comparing 18 25 Trend in reported wealth 3.01% 2.55% doubles v. no Δ 19 17 Graduate education 5.28% 7.40% v. all other levels 20 22 Number of children -0.53% -0.64% + 1 child 21 23 Race: White 3.22% 4.02% v. other race 22 21 Bachelor's degree 5.22% 6.39% v. all other levels 23 19 100+ vol. hours at last report 3.53% 5.05% Yes v. No 24 27 Some (< 4 years) college 3.15% 2.70% v. all other levels 25 31 Hispanic ethnicity -4.33% -3.90% v. other race 26 34 Race: Black -2.79% -3.71% v. other race 27 n/s Female 1.95% n/s v. male 28 24 Average volunteer hrs per year 0.91% 1.12% +100 hours 29 28 Married -1.85% -1.80% v. not married 30 26 % of years as homeowner 1.73% 2.35% 100% v. 0% 31 30 Highest vol. hours reported 0.34% 0.36% +100 hours 32 33 Last volunteer hours reported 0.44% 0.58% +100 hours 33 n/s Homeowner at last report 0.95% n/s v. not own 34 18 Age at death 0.17% 1.78% +10 years •Ranked by R2 where p<.05 •All decedents (10,233) •Those ever diagnosed with cancer (3,498)
  • 59. Less important lone items Rank Variable Likelihood changes by __ percentage points Comparing 35 n/s Lowest reported wealth -0.03% n/s doubles n/s 29 High school education n/s -1.79% v. all other levels n/s 32 Trend in charitable $ reported n/s 1.62% doubles v. no Δ n/s n/s Death was expected n/s n/s v. unexpected n/s n/s Days between start of last illness and death n/s n/s + 1 more date n/s n/s Cause of death was cancer n/s n/s v. other cause n/s n/s Trend in volunteer hrs. reported n/s n/s n/s Ever diagnosed with cancer n/s v. not
  • 60. Lone items Why not just use these numbers for our modeling? Because you can’t stack them. For example, once you know the average giving level and highest giving level, the lowest giving level isn’t that important anymore. If it was the only number you knew – by itself – it is useful. But, once you know the others, its not that useful.
  • 61. Best groups of items Because we can’t stack the first results, we next ask: If we could only know 2 facts, what would be included in the best predictive model? If we could only know 3 facts … If we could only know 4 facts … If we could only know 5 facts … If we could only know 6 facts … If we could only know 7 facts … If we could only know 8 facts … If we could only know 9 facts … If we could only know 10 facts …
  • 62. Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Base rate 2.36% 1.47% 1.49% 1.11% -2.73% -4.70% -3.20% -3.12% -2.89% -3.03% % years giving 8.69% 8.85% 8.66% 6.40% 6.73% 5.96% 6.22% 6.16% 6.29% 5.68% No offspring 8.66% 8.55% 8.60% 8.36% 9.56% 8.05% 8.00% 7.92% 7.95% Highest giving $k 0.12% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% % years reporting trust 10.19% 10.24% 8.43% 9.45% 9.36% 9.39% 9.46% Female 2.45% 2.65% 2.00% 1.96% 1.90% 1.91% Last wealth (doubles) 0.07% 0.08% 0.08% 0.06% 0.06% Married -2.18% -2.23% -2.30% -2.26% Last giving $k 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% Wealth trend 1.76% 1.83% % years volunteering 2.41% Best 1 to 10-Item Models Other items valuable (p<.01) in larger models: Education level and Age at death
  • 63. 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item base rate 4.03% 3.84% 2.96% 1.15% 0.79% 0.80% -7.90% -8.08% -8.22% -8.43% % years trust 15.08% 14.85% 14.85% 12.62% 12.86% 13.01% 12.33% 11.96% 11.67% 11.56% $k last giving 0.25% 0.24% 0.22% 0.22% 0.42% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41% No offspring 10.20% 10.32% 10.32% 10.26% 9.98% 9.94% 9.91% 9.97% % years giving 6.03% 5.21% 5.21% 5.16% 4.79% 4.54% 4.43% Volunteered in last report 3.62% 3.64% 3.94% 3.72% 3.64% 3.64% Average giving $k -0.21% -0.20% -0.20% -0.21% -0.20% Age at death 1.12% 1.14% 1.13% 1.11% Graduate education 3.42% 3.84% 3.86% Bachelor's degree 3.78% 3.83% Wealth trend 1.94% Best 1 to 10-Item with cancer diagnosis Other items valuable (p<.01) in larger models: None
  • 64. Final test… Best additional item if all other facts known If you knew ALL OF THE OTHER facts about a person, which facts still have significant ADDED VALUE to predict the charitable estate transfers after death? Note: This is also useful to examine the issue of causation (i.e., is the fact relevant only because it is associated with something else like wealth or family structure?)
  • 65. % years reporting funded trust 7.84% 12.30% 100% v. 0% Female 1.94% n/s v. male Married -1.99% n/s v. not Highest $ year of giving 0.08% n/s + $1000 No offspring exists 10.02% 13.23% Yes v. No % years giving $500+ 4.03% 5.32% 100% v. 0% $ of giving in last report 0.10% 0.41% + $1000 Bachelor's degree 2.91% 4.70% v. HS graduate Average volunteer hrs per year 1.61% n/s +100 hours Trend in reported wealth 1.80% n/s doubles v. no change Average reported wealth 0.54% n/s doubles Highest volunteer hours reported -0.56% n/s +100 hours Some (< 4 years) college 1.95% n/s v. HS graduate Graduate education 2.78% 4.56% v. HS graduate Highest reported wealth -0.44% n/s doubles Last volunteer hours reported -0.88% n/s +100 hours Items still significant (p<.01) controlling for all other items. Red examines only those previously diagnosed with cancer.
  • 66. Predicting the dollars of charitable estate gifts Note: Dollar-based analyses are always dominated by a few major donors, so the results may be less reliable than the “yes” v. “no” question.
  • 67. Different ways to compare the predictive power of each item Best lone item If you could only know ONE FACT about a person, what is the value of EACH FACT BY ITSELF? Best group of items If you could only know FIVE FACTS about a person, what are the FIVE MOST IMPORTANT facts to know? Best additional item If you knew ALL OF THE OTHER statistics about a person, what is the ADDED VALUE of knowing this ONE EXTRA fact?
  • 68. lone items Rank Variable $ effects Comparing 1 1 Average $ giving per year $1,415 $1,188 + $1000 2 3 $ of giving in last report $1,089 $1,058 + $1000 3 2 Highest $ year of giving $562 $739 + $1000 4 4 Average reported wealth $15 $12 + $1000 5 6 Last reported wealth $7 $7 + $1000 6 5 Highest reported wealth $4 $5 + $1000 7 7 % years reporting funded trust $19,853 $23,845 100% v. 0% 8 11 Funded trust in last report $12,441 $10,020 Yes v. No 9 10 Gave $500+ in last report $7,946 $7,524 Yes v. No 10 9 % years giving $500+ $8,718 $9,394 100% v. 0% 11 15 No offspring exists $10,233 $7,815 Yes v. No 12 16 Living children at last report -$9,346 -$7,112 Yes v. No •Ranked by R2 where p<.01 •All decedents (10,233) •Those ever diagnosed with cancer (3,498)
  • 69. lone items Rank Variable $ effects Comparing 13 8 Bachelor's degree $10,678 $16,733 v. all other levels 14 12 % of years reporting a will $5,047 $5,838 100% v. 0% 15 14 Will in last report $4,137 $4,832 Yes v. No 16 22 Grandchildren at last report -$4,870 n/s Yes v. No 17 21 Number of children -$678 n/s + 1 child 18 13 Graduate education $6,796 $9,268 v. all other levels 19 17 Not a high school graduate -$3,119 -$3,798 v. all other levels 20 20 Race: White $3,365 n/s v. other race •Ranked by R2 where p<.01 •All decedents (10,233) •Those ever diagnosed with cancer (3,498)
  • 70. Best groups of items Because we can’t stack the first results, we next ask: If we could only know 2 facts, what would be included in the best predictive model? If we could only know 3 facts … If we could only know 4 facts … If we could only know 5 facts … If we could only know 6 facts … If we could only know 7 facts … If we could only know 8 facts … If we could only know 9 facts … If we could only know 10 facts …
  • 71. Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 base rate 1,499 703 -242 -199 -826 -561 -836 -636 -567 346 Average $k giving 1,415 1,344 1,340 1,024 1,004 1,078 1,056 1,044 1,244 1,250 Last reported wealth $k 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 5 No offspring exists 9,774 9,722 9,815 9,807 9,917 9,868 9,844 9,325 $k of giving in last report 336 341 317 301 293 286 286 % years reporting funded trust 9,960 11,125 10,049 10,014 10,096 10,195 Highest reported wealth $k -2 -4 -5 -5 -5 Average reported wealth $k 7 10 10 10 Lowest reported wealth $k -13 -13 -12 Highest $k year of giving -113 -114 Married -2,409 Best 1 to 10-Item Models Other items valuable (p<.01) in larger models: Education level and Any Gift at Last Report
  • 72. Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 base rate 1829 464 -107 -184 158 -488 -882 -687 -1016 -712 Average $k giving 1,189 1,159 1,113 1,613 1,653 1,658 1,635 1,842 1,866 1,870 % yrs with funded trust 15,793 13,326 12,947 14,463 14,266 13,821 14,156 13,353 13,811 Last wealth $k 3 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 $k of giving in last report -586 -563 -571 -551 -467 -462 -488 Highest reported wealth $k -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 No offspring exists 7,456 7,401 7,357 7,284 7,352 College degree (highest) 7,922 7,909 8,555 9,146 Highest $k year of giving -217 -239 -226 Graduate education 6,520 7,080 Lowest reported wealth $k -12 Note: The negative association with $ of giving in the last report appears odd. This suggests that once we know the average (higher is better), we are looking for those whose giving drops in the last survey before death. If we look at those with a cancer diagnosis who DID NOT die from cancer, or those who were never diagnosed with cancer, the relationship with last giving reverses and is strongly positive. This relationship is entirely driven by those who DIED OF CANCER. In that case, the drop in giving before death appears normal for estate donors. Remember also that a few large donors will strongly influence the dollar model, but not the earlier yes/no model. Other items valuable (p<.01) in larger models: none Best 1 to 10-Item with cancer diagnosis
  • 73. Final test… Best additional item if all other facts known If you knew ALL OF THE OTHER facts about a person, which facts still have significant ADDED VALUE to predict the charitable estate transfers after death? Note: This is also useful to examine the issue of causation (i.e., is the fact relevant only because it is associated with something else like wealth or family structure?)
  • 74. Average $k giving per year $1,264 $1,898 +$1,000 % years reporting funded trust $12,082 $13,233 100% v. 0% Last reported wealth $k $5 $7 +$1,000 Average reported wealth $k $9 n/s +$1,000 Highest reported wealth $k -$5 -$4 +$1,000 Lowest reported wealth $k -$14 -$14 +$1,000 $k of giving in last report $277 -$522 +$1,000 Married -$3,275 n/s v. Not Highest $k year of giving -$119 -$228 +$1,000 College degree (highest) $4,746 $8,742 v. All other levels Graduate education n/s $6,692 v. All other levels Items still significant (p<.01) controlling for all other items. Red examines only those previously diagnosed with cancer.
  • 75. 1. The right message 2. To the right people 3. At the right time
  • 76. Factors predicting when charitable plans are ADDED
  • 77. 1.Approaching death (final pre- death survey) 2.Becoming a widow/widower 3.Diagnosed with cancer 4.Decline in self- reported health 5.Divorce 6.Diagnosed with heart problems 7.Diagnosed with a stroke 8.First grandchild 9.Increasing assets 10.Increasing charitable giving
  • 78. Factors predicting when charitable plans are DROPPED
  • 79. 1.Decline in self- reported health 2.Approaching death (final pre- death survey) 3.Becoming a widow/widower 4.Divorce 5.Diagnosed with cancer 6.Diagnosed with heart problems 7.Diagnosed with a stroke 8.First grandchild 9.First child 10.Exiting homeownership
  • 80. 1.Death feels near •Final pre-death survey •Decline in self-reported health •Diagnosis with cancer •Diagnosis with heart disease •Diagnosis with stroke •Becoming a widow or widower 2.Family structure changes •Divorce •First child •First grandchild •Becoming a widow or widower Plans destabilize when
  • 81. 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 8-10 years premortem 6-8 years pre-mortem 4-6 years pre-mortem 2-4 years pre-mortem 0-2 years pre-mortem Timing of Lifetime Surveys Lifetime giving and volunteering by estate donors Giving ($500+) Volunteering Bequest givers may not be your donors, but many used to be
  • 82. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95+ Cumulative percentage of charitable bequest dollars by donor age at death Over 80% of charitable bequest dollars come from decedents aged 80+
  • 83. Half of all charitable bequest dollars came from decedents this age and older… Current U.S. study: Age 89 New Australian study (5% sample of national probate files): Age 90 Remember that most realized charitable bequests are added within 5 years of death
  • 84. Age at Will Signing (by share of total charitable bequest $ transferred) 76% 11% 13% 80s+ 70s pre-70 Australian data from: Baker, Christopher (October, 2013) Encouraging Charitable Bequests by Australians . Asia-Pacific Centre for Social Investment & Philanthropy - Swinburne University
  • 85. Most realized charitable plans (shown in red) added within 5 years of death Total Number Total $
  • 86. Although most charitable plans were added within 5 years of death, ONE longer- term plan was worth FOUR made in the last two years.
  • 87. A 5% national sample of 2012 probate records in Australia showed an estimated •31% of charitable wills were signed within 2 years of death •60% were signed within 5 years of death Baker, Christopher (October, 2013) Encouraging Charitable Bequests by Australians . Asia-Pacific Centre for Social Investment & Philanthropy - Swinburne University
  • 88. Most still report charitable plans 10 years later 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 1993/4 to 2004 1995/6 to 2006 1998 to 2008 2000 to 2010 2002 to 2012 10-Year Retention of Charitable Estate Component age 70+ age 50-69
  • 89. 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Charitable Plan Loss Trajectory Among those still alive and answering the question who reported having a charitable component in BOTH 1998 & 2000
  • 90. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Give-Bequest Gap All 50+ Older adults are initially more resistant to bequest giving but are more responsive to bequest giving marketing { { { { { { { { }
  • 91. Organizational age helps (perceived stability and donor age) % of gift income from bequests and founding date of UK cancer charities among Top 100 UK fundraisers (Pharoah, 2010) Data from Pharoah (2010) Cancer Research UK 42.6% (1902) Macmillan Cancer Support 37.9% (1911) Marie Curie Cancer 31.0% (1948) CLIC Sargent Cancer Care for Children 18.6% (1968) Breast Cancer Care 2.1% (1972) Breakthrough Breast Cancer 1.0% (1991) Walk the Walk Worldwide 0.0% (1998)
  • 92. Many of our customers like to leave money to charity in their will. Are there any causes you’re passionate about? Would you like to leave any money to charity in your will? No reference to charity Charitable bequest decisions are often unstable and easily influenced Charitable plans among 1,000 testators Charitable plans among 1,000 testators Charitable plans among 1,000 testators
  • 93. The score doesn’t count until the clock runs out You can’t sit out the fourth quarter and expect to win
  • 94. 1. The right message 2. To the right people 3. At the right time Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research charities