Glossary - WordPress.com · Web view2019-07-02 · A study in which a number of similar people are randomly assigned to two (or more) groups to test a specific drug, treatment or

A systematic map of UK research addressing strategic and operational

management of charity and philanthropy

July 2019

Carol Vigurs1 and Sandy Oliver1

Foreword by Caroline Fiennes2

1 EPPI-Centre, UCL Institute of Education 2 Giving Evidence

Contact: Caroline FiennesDirector, Giving Evidence+44 7803 [email protected]

©Giving Evidence www.giving-evidence.com Private & confidential Page 1

ContentsGlossary..............................................................................................................................................................3

Foreword............................................................................................................................................................4

Summary.............................................................................................................................................................5

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................9

UK policy context............................................................................................................................................9

Research context.............................................................................................................................................9

Aim of this study...........................................................................................................................................10

Methods............................................................................................................................................................12

Findings: Numbers of studies............................................................................................................................15

Findings for question 1: Academic journal articles about UK charity and philanthropy....................................16

Affiliations of UK academic authors..............................................................................................................16

Characteristics of studies..............................................................................................................................17

What works and/or why...............................................................................................................................23

Aims of studies and choice of methods.........................................................................................................24

Funders of UK academic research.................................................................................................................25

Findings for question 2: Research outputs from UK academic centres of charity and philanthropy.................27

Publications from specialist centres..............................................................................................................27

Characteristics of studies..............................................................................................................................29

Aims of studies and choice of methods.........................................................................................................33

Funders of UK academic research.................................................................................................................34

Discussion.........................................................................................................................................................35

Summary of the findings...............................................................................................................................35

Strengths and limitations of the study..........................................................................................................35

Comparison of findings with wider literature...............................................................................................36

Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................38

References........................................................................................................................................................39

Appendices.......................................................................................................................................................41

Appendix 1: Identifying studies.....................................................................................................................41

Appendix 2: Journal articles including UK data.............................................................................................43

Appendix 3: Research outputs from UK specialist centres............................................................................55

Appendix 4. Coding tool................................................................................................................................66

Appendix 5: Authors and funders of this report............................................................................................75


Glossary

Academic studies Detailed investigation ‘of a subject, especially in order to discover (new) information or reach a (new) understanding’ (Cambridge English Dictionary).

Charity The giving of money, food, or help to those who need it, or an organization that does this (Cambridge English Dictionary).

Counterfactual study A comparison of the observed results to those you would expect if the intervention had not been implemented (Better Evaluation)

Empirical studies An empirical study is based on observed and measured phenomena and derives knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or belief. (Penn State Library)

Experiment / experimental design A study in the social sciences (such as sociology or psychology) in which a controlled experimental factor is subjected to special treatment for purposes of comparison with a factor kept constant (Merriam Webster)

Foundation An organization that has been created in order to provide money for a particular group of people in need of help or for a particular type of study (Cambridge English Dictionary)

Grey literature Literature which is produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats, but which is not controlled by commercial publishers. (The Fourth International Conference on Grey Literature (GL '99) in Washington, DC, in October 1999)

Philanthropy The activity of giving money. Normally used to mean giving which is voluntary i.e., by private donors, families or foundations – and not by statutory bodies procuring statutory services.

Randomised controlled trial A study in which a number of similar people are randomly assigned to two (or more) groups to test a specific drug, treatment or other intervention. One group (the experimental group) has the intervention being tested, the other (the comparison or control group) has an alternative intervention, a dummy intervention (placebo) or no intervention at all. The groups are followed up to see how effective the experimental intervention was. Outcomes are measured at specific times and any difference in response between the groups is assessed statistically. (National Institute of Health and Care Excellence)

Third sector / voluntary sector The sector comprising ‘non-governmental organisations that are value driven and which principally invest their surpluses to further social, environmental and cultural objectives.’ (Cabinet Office. The future role of the third sector in social and economic regeneration: final report, July 2007 p.5) This definition includes operational entities (e.g., charities which deliver services or run campaigns) and funders (e.g., philanthropic foundations).


ForewordThis study aimed to map the existing academic research and academic research activity around UK charities and philanthropy. It assessed the academic research already available about strategic and operational management in charities, and in philanthropic and funding activities, and had two research questions:

1. What is the nature and extent of academic, empirical research on strategic and operational management for charitable and philanthropic activities in the UK?

2. What research is produced by UK academic centres specialising in charity / philanthropy?

This study was driven by two organisations interested in the growing amount of academic research activity around charities and philanthropy. The first is Charity Futures, a think-tank promoting the long-term sustainability of charities and good leadership and governance. To this end, Charity Futures intends to establish an Institute of Charity in Oxford University, and announced this in May 2019. The second is my organisation, Giving Evidence, which advocates and encourages charitable giving based on sound evidence. We have found that smart donors consciously use two strategies: first, if adequate evidence already exists, then they use it to inform decisions; or if it doesn’t exist, they fund the production of it (Fiennes 2016).

This study of ‘supply’ complements a 'sister project' conducted by the same two organisations, looking at ‘demand’: that latter is eliciting from charities and donors / funders the topics on which they would most like additional academic research. This latter study is adapting methods developed by the James Lind Alliance for setting research priorities collaboratively (Fiennes 2018). Comparing the findings about ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ shows important gaps and the most fruitful areas for future research about UK charities and funding.

Giving Evidence and Charity Futures asked the EPPI-Centre to conduct the current study. The EPPI-Centre is an academic centre within University College London committed to informing policy and professional practice with sound evidence, through systematic reviews of available research, and focusing on the study of and training for research use. We asked the EPPI-Centre because it has the relevant skills in reviewing a body of literature, and precisely because it is not one of the academic centres focused on charities and philanthropy.

Caroline Fiennes

June 2019


SummaryIntroductionThis is a study of research addressing the strategic and operational management of charitable and philanthropic activities in the UK published since 2006, the date chosen to coincide with the Charities Act, the first major revision of UK charity law since its inception in 1601. We asked two questions:


2. What research is produced by UK academic centres specialising in charity or philanthropy?

Method and scopeOur study focused on studies of strategic and operational management for charitable and philanthropic activities in the UK. This scope excluded interventions, programmes or services provided by charity and philanthropy to enhance social outcomes. For example, we did not look for studies about what is effective in reducing loneliness, though many charities are active in this area. Rather, we were interested in studies about running charities and philanthropic activities.

We systematically searched bibliographic databases for academic journal articles that included UK data, and inspected the websites of various UK academic centres for charity and philanthropy (which are listed in the methods section on page 11) for additional reports published informally (grey literature).

We analysed the studies in terms of (a) how authors and publishers signpost them (with keywords); (b) their broad domains of interest; (c) aims and designs of the studies; (d) interventions and outcomes addressed; (e) authors’ affiliations; and (f) sources of funding. For studies investigating what works and/or why, we investigated study design and methods in more detail. We also described an overlapping subset of outputs of UK academic centres for charity and philanthropy.

Key findingsWe found 184 studies that included UK data. These included two overlapping sets of 109 journal articles addressing the UK, and 83 research reports from UK academic centres specialising in charity and philanthropy.


Overall, the numbers of studies found with UK data are low (184), although growing. There are too few studies, and too few employing identical or similar keywords to suggest there is an accumulative body of literature. We conclude that this is a literature that is emerging rather than mature.

Most of the studies were broadly about charity, philanthropy and promoting volunteering across the charity sector as a whole. Far fewer studies focused on non-profit organisations working in specific sectors such as such as culture and recreation, education and research, and international development, categories that are recognised by the International Classification of Non-profit Organizations (ICNPO).

The table below shows the broad domains attracting most interest in academic journals are about funding. There is also academic interest in internal ways of working in charity and philanthropy.


Domains of interest addressed in academic journal articles Number of studies

Donor behaviour 28

Funding and Income 19

Fundraising 13

Reach: Distribution / scope of charity and philanthropic activity 12

History 9

Communications 9

Governance 9

Managing People 6

Politics 6

Setting strategy 6

Finance 4

Legal issues 3

The sector as a whole 1

Intended beneficiaries 1

(NB studies could address more than one domain)

These studies reveal a relatively strong academic interest in what works and/or why (37). Most of these studies were interested in donor behaviour and fundraising. Another set of studies focused on internal operations of organisations (governance, setting strategy, finance, collaborations and mergers). Others were about outward-facing communication or hearing from and involving intended beneficiaries.

Studies were interested in a wide variety of outcomes in the domains of behaviour change (28), psychosocial outcomes (10), and organisational outcomes (19), but none were found addressing advocacy for changes in wider society.

What can be learnt from individual studies depends on the research methods used. Most studies were observational studies (87) describing charity and philanthropy. Of these, the qualitative (19), case study (19) and modelling (17) analyses are most capable of offering explanations. There were fewer experimental or controlled studies capable of assessing the effects of interventions (10) and, of these, seven were the most reliable design of randomised controlled trials. There were 16 syntheses of studies, only seven of which were systematic and therefore capable of offering sound evidence of effects. (Non-systematic reviews are much more open to bias in the selection of material which is included.)

The studies come from academic authors in a variety of academic disciplines, and mostly from the centres specialising in charity and philanthropy. Funders were described as Research Councils (25), charities (17), government (13), NGOs (10), corporate organisations (2) and philanthropic organisations (2). Some studies had more than one funder, and nearly half (48) of the academic articles made no statement about the source


of their funding, possibly because authors were supported by their university without additional external funds.


We found 83 studies produced by these centres, of which there 51 were reports published informally (grey literature), 30 journal articles (and therefore also considered for the first research question), and two books. The most common topics were: distribution / scope of charity and philanthropic activity; and funding and income. Some topics, such as politics, managing people, and legal issues, were given more emphasis by particular centres. Research methods were better suited to exploring interventions than assessing their effects.

Studies were funded by the public sector, commercial sector and third sector, with some studies supported by two or more funders. Numbers of studies are too low to draw conclusions about the interests of these different funders.

Philanthropic foundations funded far fewer of the studies (2) than did operational charities (32). Similarly, there is less empirical academic work (23 studies out of 168 journal articles) that is expressly about philanthropy, suggesting that evidence-informed philanthropy is still developing more slowly than evidence-informed charity. Charities have developed their tools for evaluation in response to the need to demonstrate value for money, effectiveness and, now in the UK, the requirement to demonstrate “public benefit” introduced in the 2006 Charities Act.

ConclusionsThere is a small but growing literature of studies, although so few overlap in their scope or questions that it is not yet possible to see an accumulative body of knowledge.

The studies largely address questions that are specific to charity and philanthropy (e.g., fundraising and donor behaviour).

More academic interest has focused on what charities or philanthropists do than on how they respond to targeted interventions or changes in their context of working. Another set of studies focused on internal operations of organisations (governance, setting strategy, finance, collaborations and mergers). Others were about outward-facing communication or hearing from and involving intended beneficiaries.

There is a strong academic interest in what works and/or why, but only seven studies were RCTs and therefore well designed to rigorously evaluate interventions that aim to influence donor behaviour or organisational performance.

Little is available in the academic literature or produced by UK centres for charity and philanthropy research about impact measurement methods, or about listening to or involving potential beneficiaries.

Implications In order to support an evidence-informed approach to charity and philanthropy, there is work to be done in growing the number of studies and making them easily findable.

While there is growing enthusiasm for research about charity and philanthropy, this research is scattered across the academic and grey literature. If a standardised keyword thesaurus were used consistently to studies, this would make research findings easier to find and to use. Given the inconsistency of keywords


currently applied to academic studies, identifying academic studies to populate a database could be accelerated through using Microsoft Academic1, although this would miss grey literature.

There is a need for greater replication of studies to avoid the risk of decisions being based on individual studies that may not be reliable for reasons of size, methods or context.

Both creating and using evidence requires the necessary level of resources and skills within an organisation, and a culture that encourages evaluation and critical appraisal (Mitchell and Berlan 2018).

1 https://academic.microsoft.com/home


IntroductionThis study was driven by Charity Futures’ plans to establish a new academic centre focusing on charities and philanthropy. It had two research questions:



We answered these questions by systematically searching for academic studies either published formally in academic journals or books, or published informally on the websites of UK academic centres that focus specifically on charity or philanthropy. We described each study both using the language of the authors or their publishers, and distinguishing who conducted the research, where and how – the latter using very broad categories of research.

The appendices offer details of: how we found the available reports (Appendix 1); citations of journal articles including UK data (Appendix 2), citations of studies from UK academic centres specialising in charity and philanthropy (Appendix 3), how we described studies for these analyses (Appendix 4); and the authors of this report (Appendix 5).

UK policy contextThe early 21st century was an era of growing policy interest in the Third Sector which comprises ‘non-governmental organisations that are value driven and which principally invest their surpluses to further social, environmental and cultural objectives.’ (Cabinet Office 2007). The government’s Office of the Third Sector was reconfigured and renamed into the Office for Civil Society to reflect its new role delivering the Big Society policy programme, established by the Coalition government (2010) to increase community involvement in provision of service, and the diversity and role of charities and non-profits in delivering public services.

Around the same time, two research centres were established in the UK: the Centre for Charity Effectiveness at Cass Business School (Cass CCE) at City University was established in 2004, and its publications first appeared in 2006;i and the Third Sector Research Centre at the University of Birmingham was established in 2008.ii

The 2006 Charities Act requires organisations in England and Wales claiming ‘charitable status’ to demonstrate that their activities are for public benefit, and that they comply with legal obligations, use charitable resources effectively, and are accountable to donors, beneficiaries and the general public. Research addressing obligations to demonstrate public benefit or accountability could inform strategic and operational management by charities and funders2.

Research contextAccountability to stakeholders, as required by the Charities Act, is a key motivation for third sector organisations to evaluate their own services (Bach-Mortensen and Montgomery 2018). The extent to which this motivation also includes evaluating strategic and operational management arrangements is unclear.

A series of opinion polls asked about public attitudes towards charities, ending with questions about public perceptions of charities’ use of evidence and how this is linked to public trust and donations to charities

2 We use the term ‘funders’ to mean: private foundations, corporate foundations, public sector agencies which providing funding to non-profits, and individuals.


(Harrison-Evans et al 2014). This study found that the public expected charities’ activities to be based on sound evidence, and the more that they believed that charitable activities were evidence based, the more they reported trust in the charity. The strength of this work for the current study was its UK context; its limitation for the current work is its reliance on opinion polls rather than observing how these views impacted on giving behaviour.

These findings emphasise the need for rigorous relevant research to inform UK charities and funders. Studies addressing charity and philanthropy appear in journals from a wide range of disciplines, including marketing, economics, social psychology, biological psychology, neurology and brain sciences, sociology, political science, anthropology, biology, and evolutionary psychology (Bekkers & Wiepking 2011). Such a diverse range of disciplines and sources impedes funders and research commissioners from locating relevant research to find what works (Ravenscroft 2013). This study describes the current research relevant to strategic and operational management for charitable and philanthropic activities in the UK.

Aim of this studyThis study aims to describe empirical academic studies using UK data, and particularly those studies that come from UK centres specialising in charity and philanthropy. The aim is to identify and the studies as a whole, and give an overall picture of this literature in terms of its interests and research methods. Studies of the findings of existing research are ‘systematic reviews’ of the literature (Box 1).

Box 1. What is a systematic review?

A systematic review is a study of studies. It is a structured investigation to find, critically appraise and synthesise all the relevant primary research on a specific topic. Systematic reviews are stronger than non-systematic ‘literature reviews’ in that they: (i) can reconcile differences in the conclusions of different studies by looking across a larger set of participants, (ii) identify gaps to inform further research, (iii) are more transparent and hence can be reproduced by other researchers in future and (iv) are less prone to bias. Science writer and doctor Ben Goldacre (2012) explains:

“Instead of just mooching through the research literature consciously or unconsciously picking out papers that support [our] pre-existing beliefs, [we] take a scientific, systematic approach to the very process of looking for evidence, ensuring that [our] evidence is as complete and representative as possible of all the research that has ever been done.”

Thus, a systematic review is more likely to be accurate and hence useful to practitioners for informing research and programme design than non-systematic literature. It is also more credible and hence useful in terms of convincing funders and policy-makers.

Each systematic review defines a scope (the topics, geography and timescale of interest) and the way that it will search for studies with that remit (the ‘search strategy’). Most set some threshold for the quality of the primary studies they include in their analysis. This is significant because the systematic review process is not magic: if the primary studies on which a systematic review is based are unreliable, the review’s results will be unreliable. As a Yale cardiologist wrote recently on Twitter (Krumholz 2015): ‘You can’t just combine weak evidence and pretend that when mushed together it is strong. [Rather] it is meta-mush.’

As this study is a map of the academic, empirical literature available, it does not analyse the findings of the research it identifies, or make judgements on the quality of studies found. This study does not seek evaluations of interventions delivered or funded by charities or philanthropy impact on causes or social needs that Charites and philanthropy seek to address such as homelessness, or domestic violence etc.


A second aim is to draw conclusions about its suitability as a resource to inform decisions about strategic and operational management. For instance, studies which compare different ways of working, or introduce a new way of working compared with a control group of people experiencing nothing new, are better suited to drawing conclusions about the effects of intervention, or ‘what works’. A literature is also better suited to informing decisions about what to do if there are more studies addressing the same question about the effects of different ways of working. This is because an individual study may be too small to give reliable answers, it may lack quality in its methods, offer odd results just by chance, or be conducted in a context dissimilar from the context where the decision is being made. Synthesising the results of similar studies can give more confidence in measures of effects, and offer insight into how these effects may vary in different contexts (Box 2). We therefore pay particular attention to studies addressing questions about what works, and to the number of studies addressing particular issues.

Box 2. Why is it important to have multiple studies of the same thing?

Often multiple studies of the same thing (e.g., several studies of the effects of a particular intervention) will find different answers. This is true even if the studies are each well-run.

This can be because the sample size differed between the studies (smaller studies are more likely to get weird answers than are large ones), or because the people studied differed between the studies, or just by fluke.

For instance, below are the results of various studies for whether various foods cause or prevent cancer. As you can see, the studies’ findings vary widely. Some of that variation is probably due to bad study design but some is probably due to luck.

For this reason, there is great value in multiple studies even of the same thing, and in synthesising them together – weighting the larger trials more heavily – to get closest to the ‘true answer’.

Relationship between various foods and cancer, according to many trials:


MethodsThe method was that used in a systematic review (see Box 1). First, we defined the scope of our interest as the strategic and operational management of charitable and philanthropic activities, and looked for academic studies reporting data from the UK, published in English since 2006 (to coincide with the 2006 Charities Act, the first major revision of UK charity law since its inception in 1601). To answer the first research question, we wanted formal academic publications (e.g., in journals or books). To answer the second research question, we wanted the research output of existing UK centres specialising in research addressing charities and philanthropy. We were aware of most of these when the study began and found others during our search for studies. Further details of these criteria for including studies appear in Appendix 1: Identifying studiesSecond, we systematically searched for studies meeting our criteria. To find academic journal articles, we used bibliographic databases (e.g., Proquest Central) (See Appendix 1 for the search strategy). We also searched the websites of UK academic centres specialising in charity or philanthropy:

1. Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy, (includes research activities carried out by five universities and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO); Cass Business School, City University London; Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde; University of Edinburgh Business School; University of Kent; University of Southampton) http://cgap.org.uk/

2. Centre for Philanthropy, Canterbury, University of Kent https://www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/philanthropy/

3. Centre for Research on Entrepreneurship, Wealth and Philanthropy, University of Newcastle https://www.ncl.ac.uk/rewp/

4. Centre for Voluntary Sector Leadership, Open University http://www.open.ac.uk/business-school-research/centre-voluntary-sector-leadership/

5. Centre for Voluntary Sector Research, Sheffield Hallam University, https://www.shu.ac.uk/research/specialisms/centre-for-voluntary-sector-research

6. Harthsook Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy, University of Plymouth https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/schools/plymouth-business-school/centre-for-sustainable-philanthropy

7. The Centre for the Study of Philanthropy and the Public Good, University of St Andrews http://www.philanthropy.scot/

8. The Marshall Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science http://www.lse.ac.uk/Marshall-Institute

9. Third Sector Research Centre, Social and Human Sciences, University of Southampton https://www.southampton.ac.uk/socsci/research/collaborations/understanding_the_third_sector.page

10. Third Sector Research Centre, Birmingham https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/tsrc/

Third, we screened the studies that we found and retained only those studies that met our inclusion criteria.

Fourth, we developed a set of codes to apply to each study. This involved a series of coding rounds interspersed with refining terms and definitions for the codes in light of the studies found until we were able to offer a coherent description of the whole literature. We began by describing each study with codes chosen to distinguish differences in the focus and methods of investigation, the academic discipline and geographical setting of study. To develop a set of codes that would describe the set of studies as a whole we took three starting points:

(1) We applied codes commonly applied to academic work to describe the studies in terms of the academic centres producing them, the academic discipline of the department hosting the centre (e.g., economics,


psychology, business school), the type of document (e.g., journal article, book, report published informally), the year of publication, and the research method (e.g., experiment, survey, secondary analysis of existing data).

(2) We noted the language authors used to describe the focus and methods of their research and the keywords they or their publishers attached to each study to make them findable through electronic searches.

(3) To clarify broad topic areas we applied terms familiar to Charity Futures and Giving Evidence from their past work in this field.

To capture an initial impression of the literature, we coded studies largely by relying on their titles and abstracts. After discussing as a team this initial impression of the studies as a whole, we refined the set of codes by dividing codes with large numbers to explore sets of studies in greater detail, and we merged codes with very small numbers of studies to describe meaningful clusters of studies.

For instance, we originally applied the term ‘effectiveness’ (which is of particular interest to Charity Futures and Giving Evidence) to studies that aimed to investigate effectiveness and factors associated with effectiveness (e.g., determinants of donor intentions, or donor perceptions of charitable benefit). When more than one third of the studies appeared to be meaningfully described in this way, we subdivided it into two sets of studies that aimed to:

Explore or test causal relationships Test the effects of intervention

In contrast, interventions which were described by numerous and often unique terms were clustered into three sets of:

Fundraising interventions that are outward-facing, intended to effect individual donor behaviour (e.g. direct mailing, giving circles, door to door fundraising, seeking legacies)

Organisational strategy, development and management interventions that are inward facing, intended to improve or maintain organisational performance (e.g., marketing strategies, major gift fundraising campaigns, managing supply chains, branding)

External interventions and changes in organisational context that effect charities’ and philanthropists’ behaviour work through government policy, regulation, financial support, organisational support (e.g., endowment grants, government grants, public benefit reporting requirements, supporting volunteering).

These three clusters above focus on organisations facing outwards to investigate the behaviour of individuals, and inwards to focus on their own behaviour in organisational strategy, development and management. We did not find any academic studies or reports by UK Centres for charity and philanthropy research of charities or philanthropists facing outwards in efforts to influence their socio-political context, which we describe as:

Campaigning and political activity by charities to support the delivery of their charitable purposes, such as campaigning for a change in the law, policy or decisions

Similarly, the numerous and often unique outcomes used to assess the effect of interventions were distinguished in terms of outcomes for individuals, organisations and wider society:

Behaviour change outcomes (e.g., changes in donor behaviour or practices Psychosocial outcomes (e.g., these are changes in attitudes, beliefs, knowledge or perceptions…)


Organisational change outcomes (e.g., changes in organisational practices, such as donor retention,

performance or service quality).

We did not find any academic studies or reports by UK centres for charity and philanthropy research of charities or philanthropists that had outcomes related to wider society, which we describe as:

Societal outcomes (e.g., changes in laws, policies or decisions in wider society)

The result was a set of codes or descriptors that could be applied systematically to distinguish meaningful subsets of studies, and areas lacking research attention. We then applied this final set in a second round of coding by drawing on the full reports of each study, whenever they were available.

A protocol for this study was developed and published before work began (Fiennes, 2018).


Findings: Numbers of studiesThe search strategy captured 594 unique study reports. Most of these (406) were excluded because their titles and abstracts did not match our inclusion criteria. Inspection of full reports confirmed 184 studies that focused on UK or explicitly mentioned UK in a European study. Within this number were two overlapping sets of 109 journal articles addressing the UK, and 83 research reports from UK academic centres specialising in charity and philanthropy. This flow of studies through the research process is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Studies captured and analysed following a systematic search


Systematic Reviews

4

Research Centres

154

Bibliographic databases

628

Results

786

Studies to screen

580

Exclude:

Duplicates =24 Not in English=43 Pre-2007=2 Not about

philanthropy or charity=194

Not academic = 1 Study type=61 Not UK =71

Total: = 396

Duplicates

206

184 UK studies

Described 162 UK studies:

109 in journals 83 from UK centres for

charity and philanthropy

(not mutually exclusive)

Full reports not available/ not

found

22

Findings for question 1: Academic journal articles about UK charity and philanthropyHere we answer the first research question: What is the nature and extent of academic, empirical research on strategic and operational management for charitable and philanthropic activities in the UK?

We found 184 empirical studies about strategic and operational management for charitable and philanthropic activities using data from the UK authored by academics and published in academic journals since 2006. This section reports how these authors describe themselves and their funders, and the topics they address with empirical studies. From these findings we draw conclusions about the maturity of this field of research.

Affiliations of UK academic authorsThe studies described above come from academic authors in a variety of academic disciplines (Figure 2). Many recorded their university (30) but not their academic discipline, and others were affiliated to one of the multidisciplinary centres specialising in charity and philanthropy (36). Figure 3 shows a spike of interest from 2010 to 2013. This increase was largely from two research units in the UK, and may reflect the context of “the Big Society”, a political agenda launched in 2010 intending to increase the role of civic society, including charities and social enterprise in delivering public services (Cameron 2010).

This multidisciplinary effort confirms a study by Bekkers and Wiepking (2011), which found the research of charity and philanthropy is produced by a range of academic disciplines including economics, business, finance, arts and humanities, social policy, social and political science, behavioural sciences, marketing, independent consultants, charities and academics with unspecified discipline.


Figure 2: Academic affiliations of UK journal articles (NB studies could address more than one domain)

Finance

Behavioural science

Consultants

Information technology

Charity

Economics

Social policy

Social and Political Science

Arts and Humanities

Marketing

Business and Management

University (discipline not specified)

Charity and philanthropy research centres

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1

2

2

2

3

3

5

5

7

12

16

30

36

Academic affiations of UK journal articles

Figure 3: Affiliations of authors of UK studies 2006 – 2018 (NB studies could have authors with more than one affiliation)


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20180

5

10

15

20

25

Academic affiliations of UK journal articles

Arts and Humanities Behavioural scienceBusiness and Management CharityUK Charity and Philanthropy research Centres Other charity and philanthropy research centresConsultants EconomicsFinance Information technologyMarketing Social policySocial and Political Science University (discipline not specified)

Characteristics of studiesWe described the set of studies in two ways. First, we used the keywords that authors or publishers often, but not always, select (sometimes from a journal’s predefined list of keywords) to describe the content of an article to make it easier to find in bibliographic databases. Second, we described studies in terms of their broad domains of interest, and their broad approach to research methods.

Keywords describing studiesThe 109 UK journal articles found used many different keywords (232 keywords in 63 studies – with none attached to the remaining 47 articles). Most keywords (204) were used for only one study. For example, studies about governance and legal issues used 35 different keywords, each of them only once and with no discernible pattern.

We grouped the keywords into these themes: practices, study methods or measurement, population or sector related keywords, keywords related to values and beliefs, theories of behaviour keywords, governance or legal related keywords, and keywords that were about the specific study focus. The following section considers the most commonly used keywords (more than 1) in each group.


Practice keywords (47 studies): There was no obvious pattern to the keywords that described practices or activities, with 48 different keywords with usually a single study for each keyword. Most keywords used for more than one study were those describing the whole field rather than distinguishing specific practices within it: charitable giving (10); philanthropy (8); fundraising (4); volunteering (3); contracting, corporate philanthropy, social enterprise, storytelling, and tendering each applied to 2 studies.

Study methods keywords (17 studies): There were 30 different keywords used for study methods. Only two keywords were used twice and these were for study methods: literature review (2), meta-analysis (2).

Population/ sector keywords (43 studies): There were 40 different keywords in 43 studies for the population of interest in the article. Studies were often interested in the sector as a whole (Charity, 10), or Third sector (10) followed by keywords for homelessness (4), the United Kingdom (4), voluntary sector (4) charitable donations (3), higher education (2), and non-profit (2).

Values and beliefs keywords (32 studies): There were 40 different keywords that were related to values and beliefs. Few of these were used to describe more than one study; these were altruism (4), accountability (3), religion (2) and corporate social responsibility (2).

Theories of behaviour change keywords (15 studies): There were 21 different keywords to describe theories of behaviour change with little pattern in distribution of studies using these kinds of keywords. Only two were used for more than one study: crowding out (2); and theory building (2).

Governance keywords (13 studies): The Governance and legal theme had 35 different keywords and no discernible pattern of distribution, with one study in each (some studies may have more than one keyword).

Study focus keywords (11 studies): Again, there was a wide range of different keywords (18) to describe the particular study’s focus with little pattern in their distribution.

Overall, the numbers of studies are low, although growing. There are too few studies, and too few employing identical or similar keywords to suggest there is an accumulative body of literature. Having keywords spread so thinly across the literature may indicate a need to develop consensus about how to describe key concepts for practices, governance and motivations. We conclude that this is a literature that is emerging rather than mature. Without standardised keywords, as the literature grows it will become more dispersed and difficult to navigate or to collate systematically.

Domains of interest and approaches to researchTo distinguish clusters of studies addressing similar topics with similar methods, we describe here the focus of the journal articles in terms of broad domains of interest, and their approach to analysis. We then pay particular attention to counterfactual studies because these, when well designed, are more reliable for drawing conclusions about causal relationships and what works.

Most of the studies were broadly about charity, philanthropy and promoting volunteering across the charity sector as a whole. Far fewer studies focused on non-profit organisations working in specific sectors such as such as culture and recreation, education and research, and international development, categories that are recognised by International Classification of Non-profit Organizations (ICNPO) and map onto the UK definitions of “charity purpose”.

Table 1 lists the domains of interest addressed by studies.

Table 1: Domains of interest addressed in academic journal articles (NB studies could address more than one domain)


Domains of interest Number of studies

Donor behaviour 28

Funding and Income 19

Fundraising 13

Reach: Distribution/ scope of charity and philanthropic activity 12

History 9

Communications 9

Governance 9

Managing People 6

Politics 6

Setting strategy 6

Finance 4

Legal issues 3

The sector as a whole 1

Intended beneficiaries 1

The largest cluster of studies (28) investigated aspects of donor behaviour. Studies of funding and income (19) spanned a range of topics including determinants of revenue sources for NGOs, government funding and the “crowding out” effect, costs associated with fundraising, how donors choose charities, trends in charitable bequests, geographical variations in funding of charities, etc. Fewer studies addressed the management of people (6), such as the supply and motivations of volunteers, retaining donors, acceptable wage levels for third sector workers. Historical studies of charity and philanthropy (9) spanned the 18 th century to more recent history of the “Big Society” policy agenda of 2010. Fewer still addressed legal issues (3) such as responding to the “public benefit” requirement of the Charites Act 2006, and regulation and politics (6) which included studies about the impact of devolution, or politics of identity work of the third sector.

InterventionsDonor behaviour interventions (largely fundraising interventions) by charities or philanthropists were investigated by 19 studies. There were outward-facing, intended to effect individual donor behaviour. Table 2 shows how each intervention was only addressed by one or two studies.


Table 2: Donor behaviour interventions (NB studies could address more than one intervention)

Donor behaviour intervention Number of studies

Celebrity fundraising 2Direct mailing 2Giving circle 2Imagery 2Raising awareness 2Solicitation 2Choice of payment 1Door to door fundraising 1Face to face fundraising 1Fiscal incentives 1Identifiable victim 1Nudge 1Peer effects 1Philanthropy (mechanisms driving giving) 1Reminders 1Willingness to pay 1

Organisational strategy, development and management interventions by charities or philanthropists were inward facing, intended to improve or maintain organisational performance and investigated by 7 studies. Again, each specific intervention was investigated by very few studies (Table 3).

Table 3: Organisational strategy, development & management interventions (NB studies could address more than one intervention)

Organisational strategy, development & management interventions

Number of studies

Corporate philanthropy 4Internet and IT 4Marketing 3Charity retail 2Corporate donations 2Major gift fundraising 2Accountability 1Service blueprinting 1

Technology: Of these seven studies, five investigated the use of the internet or information technology (Aldridge and Fowles 2013; Bennett 2009; Bog 2012; Cherrett et al 2015; Lucas 2017). All five were about fundraising: of which, two were about using Facebook or eBay, and one was about Oxfam's smartphone app to manage supply chain in its shops.


External interventions and changes in organisational context that effect charities’ and philanthropists’ behaviour, designed to work through government policy, regulation, financial support or organisational support, were investigated by seven studies (Table 4), with a similar pattern of few and disparate studies.

Table 4: External interventions and changes in organisational context (NB studies could address more than one external influence)

External interventions and changes in organisational context

Number of studies

Policy 3Government grants 2Social Return On Investment (SROI) 1Volunteering 1

OutcomesStudies were interested in a wide variety of behaviour change outcomes (28 studies), psychosocial outcomes (10), and organisational outcomes (19).

Behaviour change outcomes of interest were changes in donor behaviour or practices. Table 5 shows a strong interest in donations (13 studies) and charitable giving (12). These descriptions of the interventions are taken directly from the studies and the terms ‘charitable giving’ and ‘donations’ were often used interchangeably. As a rule of thumb, ‘charitable giving’ could include more than money, such as time, and was given to the charity. Studies that mentioned donations tended to focus on the amount of money given for specific cause.

Table 5: Behaviour change outcomes (NB studies could address more than one behaviour change)

Behaviour change Number of studies

Donations 13Charitable giving 12Requests for donations 2Determinants 1Practices 1Volunteering 1


Psychosocial outcomes (attitudes, beliefs, knowledge or perceptions) were an interest in 10 studies focusing on various outcomes (Table 6).

Table 6: Psychosocial outcomes (NB studies could address more than one outcome)

Psychosocial outcomes Number of studies

Attitudes 4Mechanisms of behaviour change 3Drivers of behaviour change 1Motives for behaviour change 1Quality of life 1Social outcomes 1Trust 1

Organisational change outcomes such as changes in organisational practices (donor retention, performance or service quality) were considered by 19 studies (Table 7).

Table 7: Organisational change outcomes (NB studies could address more than one outcome)

Organisational change Number of studies

Performance 6Philanthropy 3Donor retention 2Funding from philanthropic sources 2Management 2Positive outcomes (not defined) 2Business outcomes 1Policy 1Profit 1Service quality 1

Societal outcomes: We did not find any UK academic research assessing the impact of charity or philanthropy on wider societal outcomes such as changes in laws, policies or other decisions in wider society.

Table 8 shows that there are more studies that have considered the outcomes of charities or philanthropists seeking to influence donors or change their internal ways of working (first two rows), than studies of how the context in which they work (e.g., government policy, regulation and financial or organisational support) changes the charitable or philanthropic organisations (last row). Also, more attention has focused on behavioural changes than the attitudes, beliefs, knowledge or perceptions that might influence behaviour.


Table 8: Studies exploring interventions and outcomes (NB studies could address more than one intervention or outcome)

InterventionsBehavioural outcomes

Psychosocial outcomes

Organizational outcomes

Societal outcomes

Employed by charities/ philanthropistsTargeting donor behaviour (fundraising)

10 4 5 0

Organisational strategy, development & management

8 4 8 0

Targeting charities/ philanthropists or their context of workingGovernment policy, regulation, financial or organisational support

2 1 4 0

The cluster of studies addressing behavioural outcomes focused mainly on donor behaviour and fundraising, with individual studies addressing strategy setting, communications and governance.

Very few studies looked at the effect of interventions on psychosocial outcomes. Donor behaviour intervention studies that did investigated trust (2) and motives (2).

Studies addressing the outcomes of organisational change were very few (4). One small cluster of studies addressed communication for better organisational performance.

What works and/or whyMany of these populations, interventions and outcomes were combined in studies assessing what works (or not) and why (Table 9). Of the 37 studies investigating what works and/or why, most addressed donor behaviour (18 studies) either by testing different mechanisms of charitable giving, or by measuring behavioural factors associated with charitable giving, such as why people choose to give to particular charities. Studies of funding and income (7) included studies that measured impacts of different types of fundraising activities such as fundraising through the internet (Aldridge and Fowles 2013) or whether government grants displace or leverage private donations to non-profit organisations (Lu 2016). Governance studies (2) included a study of the adoption of environmental management systems across the third sector (Edwards 2013). One study investigated how visual images inform key management areas of internal organisation and policies, roles and relationships (Dogra 2007).


Table 9: Focus of studies investigating what works and/or why (NB studies could address more than one domain)

Studies addressing what works and/or why for: Number of studiesDonor behaviour 18Funding and income 7Finance 4Governance 2Setting strategy 1Managing people 1Intended beneficiaries 1Communications 1Total 37

In summary, most studies were interested in donor behaviour and fundraising. Another set of studies focused on internal operations of organisations (governance, setting strategy, finance, collaborations and mergers). Others were about outward-facing communication or hearing from and involving intended beneficiaries.

Aims of studies and choice of methodsThe aim of most studies (26) was to investigate current practice. They applied observational methods (25) or reviewed existing research reports (6). Also attracting considerable attention was the aim of understanding strategic and operational management by exploring or texting causal relationships, either with observational methods or experimental / counterfactual designs (Table 10).

Studies of trends over time (9) reanalysed existing quantitative data (8) or analysed documents or interview transcripts (1). Studies addressing the development of the sector (7) and measures of performance (6) employed a variety of observational methods. Of these, the qualitative (19), case study (19) and modelling (17) analyses are most capable of offering explanations.

Individual studies that aimed to test the effects of interventions (8) employed experimental designs (7 RCTs, 1 controlled trial without randomisation) or modelling analyses (2). There was also a systematic review and meta-analysis.


Table 10: study designs employed in academic journal articles (NB studies could have more than one design)

Aim of study ObservationalExperimental/ counterfactual

Review Total

Study of current practice 25 0 6 31Explore or test causal relationships 26 3 3 30Study of trends 9 0 0 9Development of the sector 7 0 2 8Measuring Performance 6 0 1 8Advance methodology 4 1 2 8Test the effects of intervention 2 5 1 8Defining the sector 5 0 3 7Theory development 3 1 0 4Views of beneficiaries 1 0 0 1Document history 1 0 0 1Total 86 10 16 109

Funders of UK academic researchOver half (63) of the academic journal articles appeared to be funded by their authors’ universities alone (Table 11). Of these 59 made no statement about funding, three named their university, and one stated no funding was received. Where additional funding was received, the most common sources were Research Councils (37 studies), government (23), charities (18), philanthropic organisations (5), and corporate organisations (2).

Reseach Councils were the most frequent single source of additional funding (16 studies), and they also funded studies with government (18), charities (16), philanthropic organisations (1), and a corporate organisation (1). Other single additional sources of funding were rare: they came from government (4), charity (2), philanthropy (2), and a corporate organisation (1).

More frequently, authors combined funding from two or more sources to support a study. Charities most often funded studies with government (10 studies) and research councils (16). Government departments gave funding alongside charities (10), research councils (16) and NGOs (8). Research Councils funded research alongside charities (16), corporate organisations (1), and government (1). One study was funded by a corporate organisation alongside government (1).


Table 11: Sources of funding

Research Council Government Charity Philanthropy Corporate

organisationUniversity/

noneTotal

Research Council 16 18 16 3 1 - 37

Government 18 4 16 1 1 - 23Charity 16 16 2 0 0 - 18Philanthropy 3 1 0 2 0 - 5Corporate organisation 1 1 0 0 1 - 2

University/ none - - - - - 63 -

Total 37 23 18 5 2 109


Findings for question 2: Research outputs from UK academic centres of charity and philanthropyThis section addresses research question 2: What research is produced by UK academic centres specialising in charity / philanthropy?

We found 83 reports explicitly described as outputs from centres specialising in charity and philanthropy that addressed the strategic and operational management. Here we describe these outputs in terms of when and where they were published, their focus of interest, their aims and their choice of methods

Publications from specialist centresThe outputs from specialist centres included in this analysis were journal articles (30), grey literature (51) and books (2) (Table 12). If academics affiliated with these centres published other reports and recorded their affiliation differently, for instance to their university alone, the report is not included here. For instance, we found no research outputs affiliated with the Centre for the Study of Philanthropy and the Public Good at St Andrews nor the Marshall Institute at LSE.

Table 12: Publications from academic centres specialising in charity and philanthropy

Centre Journal article Grey literature BookCentre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy (CGAP) 2 13 0

Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent 5 12 2

Centre for Research on Entrepreneurship, Wealth and Philanthropy, University of Newcastle

0 3 0

Centre for Voluntary Sector Leadership, Open University 0 5 0

Centre for Voluntary Sector Research, Sheffield Hallam University

1 7 0

Third-sector Research Centre, Social and Human Sciences, University of Southampton

4 0 0

Hartshook Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy, University of Plymouth

1 10 0

Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham 17 1 0

Centre for the Study of Philanthropy and the Public Good, University of St Andrews

0 0 0

The Marshall Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science

0 0 0

Total 30 51 2

The centres have published a few studies each year, with a small spike in output between 2009 and 2014 (Figure 4) which is mainly explained by output from the Third Sector Research Centre in Birmingham, which published five relevant studies in 2011, four in 2012, six in 2013 and one in 2015. A rise in the number of studies published in 2016 is mainly explained by the output from the Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy, Plymouth and the Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent.


Figure 4: Studies produced each year by academic centres of charity and philanthropy (NB studies could have authors from more than one centre)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20180

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0

0

0 0 0

01

0 2

5

2

1

0

0

0 0

2

5 3

6

0

2

0

0

0

UK academic research centres publishing 2006 - 2018

Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy CGAPCentre for philanthropy at the University of KentCentre for Research on Entrepreneurship, Wealth and Philanthropy, Newcastle UniversityCentre for Voluntary Sector Leadership, Open University, UKCentre for Voluntary Sector Research, Sheffield Hallam UniversityThird-sector Research Centre, Social and Human Sciences, University of SouthamptonHartshook Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy, PlymouthThird Sector Research Centre, University of BirminghamThe Marshall Institute, LSEThe Centres for philanthropy and the public good, St Andrews

We found 83 studies produced by these centres, of which most (51) were reports published informally (grey literature), 30 were journal articles, and two were books. Centres varied in the number and types of outputs (Figure 5). Most studies in academic journals were from the Third Sector Research Centre in Birmingham and most grey literature reports were published by the Centre for philanthropy at the University of Kent. Some outputs had authors from more than one UK centre.

With the Centre for the Study of Philanthropy & Public Good in the School of management, University of St Andrews, we found no links to primary published research on its website. Instead the website listed themes of research interests: these were: Philanthropy & Society; Exploring Public Good; Philanthropy: knowledge, discourse practice.


Figure 5: Types of publications produced by academic centres of charity and philanthropy

University of Kent

TSRC, University of Birmingham

CGAP

Plymouth

Sheffield Hallam University

Open University, UK

University of Southampton

Newcastle University

St Andrews

LSE

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Publication type by UK Centres for charity and philanthropy research

journal article grey literature Book

Characteristics of studiesOutputs from the UK specialist centres are described first in terms of their keywords, and then in terms of their topics, aims and research methods.

Domains of interest and approaches to researchA smaller proportion of outputs from UK centres compared to the UK academic research were accompanied by keywords because many of them were reports published informally rather than journal articles. As with the UK journal articles as a whole, the work from UK specialist centres were sometimes signposted by keywords relating to practices (or things that are done), keywords describing methods and measurements used in the study, populations and sectors investigated, values and/or beliefs, theories of behaviour, keywords relating to governance and study specific keywords.

Practice keywords (17 studies): 20 different keywords were used to describe practice, most of which were for philanthropy (3) and social enterprise (2).

Methods keywords (12 studies): there were 15 different keywords that described different methods, such as cross-sectional perspectives, or citizenship survey with one study for each type.


Population or sector keywords (18 studies): these groups were described by 18 different keywords, including third sector (9), charities (4) the voluntary sector (3) homelessness (2) and non-profit (2). The remainder had one study in each.

Values and beliefs keywords (8 studies): had 11 different keywords, including items such as altruism or prosocial behaviour.

Theories of behaviour keywords (4 studies): only five keywords including substitution theory and crowding out.

Study specific keywords (8 studies): there were 13 keywords that were specific to the study. For instance, “Big Society” was used twice.

Governance and legal keywords (3 studies): with five keywords. Examples of governance keywords were revenue and sustainability.

TopicsTable 13 shows that the most studies from these centres concerned the current distribution or the scope of charity and philanthropy activity (25). The second most common topic of study was funding and income (21).

Table 13: Study focus overall for centres for charity and philanthropy research. (NB studies could address more than one domain)

Study focus Number of studiesDistribution/ scope of charity and philanthropic activity 25Funding and Income (including tax incentives and tax deductions) 21

What works and/or why 14Donor behaviour 13History 9Fundraising 8Managing people 7Governance 6Legal issues 6Setting strategy 4Communications 3Finance 3Intended beneficiaries 1

The balance of topics addressed varied across the UK specialist centres (Figure 6). The Third Sector Research Centre at the University of Birmingham has more about politics. The Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy (CGAP) has emphasised funding and income. Hartshook Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy at University of Plymouth has provided more studies about managing people. The Centre for Voluntary Sector Research and Sheffield Hallam University has had a particular focus on legal issues.


Figure 6: Classification of study focus for each UK centre for charity and philanthropy research (NB studies could address more than one topic)

The Marshall Institute, LSE

The centres for the study of philanthropy and the public good, St Andrews

Centre for Research on Entrepreneurship, Wealth and Philanthropy, Newcastle University

Centre for Voluntary Sector Leadership, Open University, UK



Hartshook Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy, Plymouth

Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy CGAP

Centre for philanthropy at the University of Kent

Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Classification of topic focus: operation and managementUK Centres for charity and philanthropy research

Distribution/ scope of charity and philanthropic activity HistoryFunding and Income Managing PeopleLegal issues The sector as a wholePolitics

Studies where the study focus was what works and/or why (14) were mainly about interventions targeting donor behaviour (13) and fundraising (8) (Figure 7). There were fewer studies of operational management, such as governance, communications, setting strategy, finance and collaborations and mergers.


Figure 7: Centres providing studies addressing what works and/or why (NB studies could address more than one domain)

Centre for Research on Entrepreneurship, Wealth and Philanthropy, Newcastle University

Centre for Voluntary Sector Leadership, Open University, UK

The Marshall Institute, LSE

The centres for the study of philanthropy and the public good, St Andrews



Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham

Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy CGAP

Hartshook Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy, Plymouth

Centre for philanthropy at the University of Kent

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Classification of topic focus: What works and why

What works and why Setting strategy CommunicationsGovernance Finance Donor behaviourIntended beneficiaries Fundraising Other


Aims of studies and choice of methodsTable 14 lists the study designs for studies produced by centres for charity and philanthropy research. It shows that most effort has been directed largely at understanding current practice (25 studies), and how the sector has been changing: trends over time (12), defining the sector (6), and documenting its history (3). There is also strong interest in understanding causal relationships (12) such as factors that influence giving. There are few studies testing the effects of intervention (1) or advancing theory (3) or methodology (1). Two studies investigated the views of beneficiaries. One used qualitative methods to understand the views of beneficiaries about their visual representations in fundraising (Breeze 2012). Another was interested in how young people valued artistic and cultural engagement in amateur and voluntary arts (Milling et al. 2015).

Table 14: Study designs for studies produced by centres for charity and philanthropy research


Review Total

Study of current practice 25 0 4 27Study of trends 12 0 4 15Explore or test causal relationships 12 0 6 14Development of the sector 6 0 2 8Defining the sector 6 0 2 7Theory development 3 0 4 4Document history 3 0 1 3Measuring Performance 2 0 1 2Advance methodology 1 0 1 2Test the effects of intervention 1 1 1 2Views of beneficiaries 2 0 0 2Total 71 1 25 83

The focus of studies and their choice of methods is largely similar whether the specialist academic centres publish their work in academic journals (Table 15) or on their own websites (Table 13). However, comparing these tables with Table 10 shows that there is a much larger proportion of experimental or counterfactual studies in the academic, empirical literature more widely (10/109), than from the UK centres specialising in charity and philanthropy (1/83). Conversely, there is a smaller proportion of reviews in the wider academic, empirical literature (16/109) compared with the UK specialist centres (25/83); and this difference is even greater when the wider academic literature is compared with the UK specialist centres’ grey literature (18/51).


Table 15: Study designs for studies published on websites of centres for charity and philanthropy research


Review Total

Study of current practice 16 0 3 17Study of trends 8 0 4 11Explore or test causal relationships 5 0 4 7Development of the sector 5 1 2 5Defining the sector 2 0 0 2Theory development 2 0 4 4Document history 2 0 1 2Measuring Performance 1 0 1 1Advance methodology 1 0 0 1Test the effects of intervention 1 1 1 2Views of beneficiaries 2 0 0 2Total 43 1 18 51

Funders of UK academic researchThese centres are relatively new. The Third Sector research Centre at the University of Southampton was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the UK government Cabinet Office's Office of the Third Sector (renamed the Office for Civil Society in 2010), and the Barrow Cadbury Trust from 2008 – 2013. The Third Sector Research Centre continues to be funded by the Barrow Cadbury Trust in areas to do with “under the radar” third sector activity.

The Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy, Plymouth was established in in 2014, and was funded by a $1 million grant to develop the field of philanthropy psychology. Half of its studies (5 out of ten in total that met our criteria for inclusion) were published in 2016 and this accounted for 6 out of ten of the studies that formed this spike in output in 2016.

The Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent was established in 2008 and is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Office of the Third Sector, the Carnegie UK Trust and the Scottish Executive. Of the 22 included studies published since 2008 five were published in 2016.The three studies from the Centre for Research on Entrepreneurship, Wealth and Philanthropy at the University of Newcastle, did not state their sources of funding.

Three of the five studies from the Centre for Voluntary Leadership at the Open University were supported by corporate funding from Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales.

Studies from the Centre for Voluntary Sector Research at Sheffield Hallam University were funded by the Charity Commission), a charity and government partnership (Netherthorpe and Upperthorpe Community Alliance and the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund), the Association of Charity Independent Examiners, and the Big Lottery Fund. Three studies did not record their funding.

Studies from the Hartshook Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy at University of Plymouth were supported by: corporate funding (Boomerang, Pursuant, Givesmart, GivOnline); charities (The Resource Alliance, The


Rockefeller Foundation); and a university (the Institute of Development Studies). Seven of 11 studies did not report their funding.

UK centres for charitable giving and philanthropy have collaborated with a number of universities. Most studies (ten out of 16) by the University of Southampton were produced in collaboration with the Centre for Charitable Giving: this was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, the Office for Civil Society, Carnegie UK Trust and the Scottish Government. The University of Strathclyde (all four studies), University of Edinburgh (all four studies) and University of Kent (2 studies) have also produced research in collaboration with the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy (CGAP) funded by (funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, the Office for Civil Society, Carnegie UK Trust and the Scottish Government).

DiscussionSummary of the findingsThere is a small but growing research literature addressing strategic and operational management for charitable and philanthropic activities. These studies were scattered across many bibliographic databases with no standardised keywords, which makes them very hard to find. Most studies explored current practices or what works and/or why. They were more often about the charitable and philanthropic sector as a whole rather than charitable or philanthropic activity in specific sectors, such as specifically within the arts or education or other social services.

Academic studies come from a wide range of disciplines although most of the included studies came from multidisciplinary centres for charity and philanthropy. Much of their output is published informally, rather than in academic journals.

Research has been funded by the public sector, commercial sector and third sector, with some studies supported by two or more funders. Numbers of studies are too low to draw conclusions about the interests of these different funders.

Many studies described or evaluated efforts to influence (or understand factors influencing) donors, efforts to influence charities or philanthropists, or their programmes. Their focus was on changes in behaviour of individuals or organisations, and in the psychology of giving. Although many studies aimed to assess the effects of interventions, there were very few randomized controlled trials, which are commonly understood to be the “gold standard” for studies that aim to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention.

Few studies are funded by foundations than by operational charities. Similarly, there is less empirical academic work addressing philanthropy compared to charity.

Overall, this map offers a picture of a literature that is emerging, and not yet a mature resource to support evidence-informed decisions.

Strengths and limitations of the studyThis systematic map is the first study of its kind offering a comprehensive view of the focus and funding of research about strategic and operational management of UK charity and philanthropy. Comprehensive searching found only a small literature of academic publications, either reports that have been published in academic journals or informally on academic websites (the latter being grey literature).

The search for literature produced by academic centres but not published in academic journals was only conducted within the UK. A broader literature is likely to be available from government, third sector organisations and the charitable arms of commercial organisations, but this is beyond the purpose of


identifying areas of on-going UK academic research activity. Even within the UK, some academic studies may have been missed because they are neither indexed in bibliographic databases nor published on the websites of the included academic centres. Examples include books and reports published on non-academic websites (e.g. the ACF annual Foundation Trends report, whose lead author is Cathy Pharoah at the Cass Business School at City University, and is published on the website for the Association of Charitable Foundations iii).

We looked at how individual studies were funded, where the study stated this. We did not look at the funding of whole centres, departments, faculties, schools or university buildings. This missing evidence may be more relevant to the USA where higher education has a stronger philanthropic tradition.

The search did not identify any studies investigating the impact of organisations advocating or lobbying for policy change. However, we are aware of two reports documenting such influence and there may be more. For instance, the Foundation for the Study Infant Deaths played a key role in changing national advice to mothers of newborns (McKee et al. 1996), but the research recording this influence could not have been picked up by an electronic search focusing on charity or philanthropy because the meta-data identifying the study focused on physiology, epidemiology, health education, sleep, mortality, policy and public administration, rather than charity and philanthropy. Similarly, the charity Surviving Economic Abuse, used their own research in written evidence submitted to the joint committee on the draft Domestic Violence Bill, requesting that economic abuse be recognised as an aspect of coercive control. This research was published as a report on their website and would not have been identified in this search for academic literature and UK centres for charity and philanthropy research.

There was a strong interest in understanding and assessing the effects of interventions, but few studies employed designs capable of assessing the effects in a rigorous manner. Although randomised controlled trials are well designed for assessing the effectiveness of social interventions, there are widespread objections made for technical, ethical challenges or budget reasons (Oakley et al 2003). For instance, there are difficulties in isolating the effect of complex social interventions, and ethical objections to denying a novel and appealing service to a control group. Instead, other study designs are often applied to measure charity and philanthropy outputs in terms of their activities and reach. There are dangers in using these as a proxy measure for effectiveness.

Comparison of findings with wider literatureWe have identified a small set of studies addressing strategic and operational management for charitable and philanthropic activities in the UK. The small numbers are unsurprising given the challenges third sector organisations face with the complementary task of evaluating their service work, challenges captured in a systematic review (Bach-Mortensen and Montgomery 2018b). The barriers to evaluation include: lack of financial resources; lack of technical capability and evaluation literacy; challenges around identifying relevant evaluation systems and outcome indicators. Key facilitating factors involved: getting the appropriate support; having an organisational culture that supports evaluation; and the motivation to be accountable to stakeholders.

An alternative approach to evaluating the effects of their own work, is for charities or philanthropists to turn to evidence libraries (e.g. Campbell Library,iv Social Systems Evidencev) and adopt or adapt health and social programmes that can be found there.

Recognising that charities use research in campaigning, the NCVO and the Alliance for Useful Evidence are looking into how charities currently use evidence in campaigns in order to develop guidance on how to make the best use of evidence in charity campaigning (NCVO 2018). Given the subsequent challenge of


implementing evidence-informed programmes (Bach-Mortensen et al. 2018a), support is required both in drawing on research to make decisions about policy, and then how to implement those decisions.

Charities then need good research for the purpose of campaigning and impacting on social and policy outcomes, but it is less clear where charities should go to find it or how to ensure that the research is of high quality. If good practice and good research is spread out on websites of individual charities this will make the sharing of good practice and the development of sound research methods for measuring social impacts difficult for charities and philanthropists to locate.

In relation to charities producing their own research as well as using it, the NCVO suggests that charities consider communicating their findings to interested audiences, but does not include academics in the list of potentially interested audience. This may reflect a view that the research produced by charities is oriented to changing practice, whether this is raising awareness for campaigning or addressing social needs instead of for advancing knowledge.

Noticeable for their absence in this map were studies addressing policy advocacy by charities or philanthropists. A systematic review has found that organisational size, professionalisation, board support, constituent involvement, knowledge about laws, government funding, private donations, foundation funding, collaboration, and negative policy environment all have positive and significant relationships with a non-profit's level of advocacy engagement (Lu et al. 2018). We have found no similar synthesis on the effects of the advocacy. However, such studies may exist yet be missed by an electronic search for charity or philanthropy.

Similarly, we found little research about institutional funders, grant making foundations or commissioning of services or research.

This map includes only research explicitly addressing charity and philanthropy. The studies it identifies are largely about fundraising, and very little about other key aspects of charity and fundraising, namely dealing directly with beneficiaries (of which there is one journal article and one report published informally), and advocacy or campaigning (where we found no studies).

There are other literatures that, without explicitly mentioning them, may be relevant to charity and philanthropy:

a. Use of evidence for making decisionsb. Effective performance of committees for decision-makingc. Audit committees, annual reporting, Boardsd. Managing research programmese. Managing service programmes

This study sits alongside a ‘sister’ project which has consulted UK charities and donors (of all types) about the topics on which they would like additional (academic) research. The results of that ‘demand study’ are published separately (including by Giving Evidence, at www.giving-evidence.com/consultation and by Charity Futures). It resulted in a list of questions which were suggested and prioritised by UK charities and donors. The combined results of this ‘supply’ study with the ‘demand study’ can inform (but need not dictate) future research activity in this area.

For example, the list from the ‘demand’ study is dominated by questions about impact: understanding impact, measuring impact, communicating impact, increasing impact. This ‘supply study’ found very little


http://www.giving-evidence.com/consultation

current literature about these topics. Little is available about impact measurement methods, or about listening to or involving potential beneficiaries.

The demand study’s priority #14 is about investigating new approaches to governance. That may be usefully informed by the set of studies focused on internal operations of organisations (governance, setting strategy, finance, collaborations and mergers).

The ‘demand’ priorities about assessing impact meaningfully (#5) and communicating that impact (#10) can be informed by existing studies about outward facing communication or hearing from and involving intended beneficiaries.

ConclusionsThere is a small but growing literature about UK charities and philanthropy, although so few studies overlap in their scope or questions that it is not yet possible to see an accumulative body of knowledge in this area.

The studies that are available largely address questions that are specific to charity and philanthropy, such as fundraising and donor behaviour.

More academic interest has focused on what charities or philanthropists do (covered by many of the priorities) than on how they respond to targeted interventions or changes in their context of working (not considered by the priorities).

There is a strong academic interest in what works and/or why, but very few studies applied experimental designs to rigorously evaluate interventions that aim to influence donor behaviour or organisational performance.

Though there is growing research activity around charity and philanthropy, this research is scattered across the academic and grey literature. A standardised keyword thesaurus applied consistently to studies made publicly available would overcome an accessibility barrier to using research findings. Collating key research in a new field of study can include developing a specialised bibliometric database (such as for UK-focused health and social care studies) to hold content which is not indexed in larger commercial databases (Cooper et al. 2015), adding an essential term to an existing thesaurus as was done with MEDLINE to better identify randomised controlled trials (LeFebvre 1994), professional indexing of studies in bibliographic databases as seen with the Australian Education Index (Hider 2017), and semi-automatic classifying of studies, as reported for animal health and welfare studies (Gautret et al. 2017). Given the inconsistency of keywords currently applied to academic studies, identification of academic studies to populate a database could be accelerated through the use of Microsoft Academicvi, although this would miss grey literature.

There is work to be done advocating an evidence-informed approach to charity and philanthropy. Creating and using evidence requires the necessary level of resources and skills within an organisational culture that encourages evaluation and critical appraisal (Mitchell and Berlan 2018).

We recommend:

1. Investing effort in collating research about strategic and operational management in a specialist database, and developing consensus about how to keyword research in this field. This will require more sensitive searching than we applied in this map, to gather research about specific topics in the field.

2. Making more research publicly available, even when published in academic journals.3. Comparing the research priorities identified by the ‘demand’ study, and applying more sensitive

searches to identify existing studies that match these interests.


4. Conducting more research addressing how beneficiaries can be involved in guiding what research is

done and how

References(This list is of studies cited in the main text. For included studies see Appendix 2: Journal articles including UK data)

Aldridge N, and Fowles J. (2013). Cause-related marketing and customer donations in an online marketplace. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(1), pp.52-59.

Bach-Mortensen AM, Lange BCL, Montgomery P. (2018b) Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based interventions among third sector organisations: A systematic review. Implementation Science 13(103).

Bach-Mortensen AM, Montgomery P. (2018a) What are the barriers and facilitators for third sector organisations (non-profits) to evaluate their services? A systematic review. Systematic Reviews 22;7(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0681-1.

Bekkers R, Weipking P. (2011) A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy. Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Non-profit and voluntary sector quarterly. Vol 40, issue 5.

Brunton G, Thomas J, Oliver S (2018) Applying framework synthesis in systematic reviews. Presentation. EPPI Centre.

Cabinet Office (2007). The future role of the third sector in social and economic regeneration: final report, July 2007 p.5

Cameron D (201) The Big Society. 31th March. [http://www.ukpol.co.uk/david-cameron-2010-speech-on-the-big-society/]

Cooper, C. , Rogers, M. , Bethel, A. , Briscoe, S. and Lowe, J. (2015), A mapping review of the literature on UK‐focused health and social care databases. Health Info Libr J, 32: 5-22. doi:10.1111/hir.12083

The Charities Act 2006, 2011 UK. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/50/contents Accessed 23/10/18

De Wit A, Bekkers R. (2015) Government Support and Charitable Donations: A Meta-Analysis of the Crowding-Out Hypothesis. Science of Philanthropy Initiative, Working Paper no.: 143

Dogra N. (2007). 'Reading NGOs visually' - Implications of visual images for NGO management. Journal of International Development, 19(2), pp.161-171.

Edwards R, Smith G, and Buchs M. (2013). Environmental Management Systems and the third sector: Exploring the implications of weak adoption in the UK. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(1), pp.119 - 133.

Fiennes C (2018) Protocol: Consultation to Identify Research Priorities in UK Charities and Philanthropy. Giving evidence. https://givingevidence.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/charity-futures-consultation-research-protocol-may-2018.pdf

Fiennes C (2016) How to give it: why charity should begin in the science lab. The Financial Times, 1 April 2016 [https://www.ft.com/content/a30701b4-f5a4-11e5-803c-d27c7117d132]


https://www.ft.com/content/a30701b4-f5a4-11e5-803c-d27c7117d132

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/50/contents

https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12083

Gautret M, Messori S, Jestin A, Bagni M, Boissy A (2017) Development of a semi-automatic bibliometric system for publications on animal health and welfare: a methodological study. Scientometrics 113: 803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2494-8

Harrison-Evans P, Hargrave R, Noble J. (2014) Show And Tell: Charities, Polling & Evidence Of Doing Good. Paper 4. Ipsos MORI. New Philanthropy Capital. UK

Philip Hider. 2017. The Search Value Added by Subject Descriptors in Journal Databases. NASKO, Vol. 6. pp. 94-103.

Karlan D, Wood DH., (2017) The effect of effectiveness: Donor response to aid effectiveness in a direct mail fundraising experiment, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 1-8.

LeFebvre C. (1994), The Cochrane Collaboration: the role of the UK Cochrane Centre in identifying the evidence. Health Libraries Review, 11: 235-242. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2532.1994.1140235.x

Lu J. Organizational antecedents of nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy: A meta-analytical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 2018;47(4):177S-203S.

McKee M, Fulop N, Bouvier P, Hart A, Brand H, Rasmussend F, Kohler L, Varasovszky Z, Rosdahlg N.(1996) Preventing sudden infant deaths – the slow diffusion of an idea. Health Policy 37, 117-135.

Mitchell GE, and Berlan E (2018) Evaluation in Nonprofit Organizations: An Empirical Analysis. Public Performance & Management Review 41. 2 pp.415-437

NCVO “Using evidence in campaigning: Call for evidence” NCVO (June 6th 2019) retrieved from https://www.ncvo.org.uk/policy-and-research/campaigning-policy/evidence-in-campaigning

NCVO “How to use your evaluation findings to engage external audiences” (June 6th 2019) retrieved from https://knowhow.ncvo.org.uk/how-to/how-to-use-your-evaluation-findings-to-engage-external-audiences

Ravenscroft C. (2013) The Secrets Of Success? How charitable funders use and share evidence in practice. The Alliance for Useful Evidence

Salamon SM, Anheier HK. (1996) The international classification Of nonprofit organizations. Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies; Rev. 1 edition

Surviving economic abuse (2018) Economic abuse is your past present and future: A report on the practicalbarriers women face in rebuilding their lives after domestic violence. Round table report. Home Office


https://www.ncvo.org.uk/policy-and-research/campaigning-policy/evidence-in-campaigning

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2532.1994.1140235.x

AppendicesAppendix 1: Identifying studiesThis map adopts the methods of framework synthesis (Brunton et al. 2018) whereby an initial framework is constructed by the research team and the immediate users of the findings, in this case Charity Futures. The framework is populated with relevant research and possibly amended in the light of new understanding as the nature and scale of the relevant literature becomes apparent.

It draws on systematic review methods for identifying studies, screening studies against predefined inclusion criteria, coding key characteristics of included studies, describing, and presenting findings. The map does not involve the quality appraisal, data extraction and synthesis of findings undertaken in a systematic review.

Scope of literature to be mappedA set of inclusion / exclusion criteria was developed by Giving Evidence and the EPPI-Centre in discussion with Charity Futures to identify studies to be included in the map. Studies were included if they met each of the following criteria:

1. Study focus: addressing the strategic and operational management of charitable and philanthropic activities. This includes charitable and philanthropic giving by third sector organisations, charities, foundations, and corporations. Studies will not be included if they address specific areas of social policy in which charities are active, such as services for homelessness, without also considering strategic and operational management.

Charitable organisations include registered and non-registered charities, faith groups, Community Interest Companies (CIC), and not-for-profit social enterprises that, in UK legislation, meet the test of public benefit. The funding for charity and philanthropic activities can be from: Statutory entities which fund non-profits (e.g., local authority, central government) Institutional foundation (either grant-making or ‘operating foundation’, i.e., foundations which

run their own programmes) Individual donors Advisor or advocate of philanthropy Corporate foundations

Studies about charitable giving or philanthropy by corporations as part of its corporate social responsibility strategy will be included. However, studies that are solely about wider corporate social responsibility (CSR) such as encouraging staff to volunteer in their communities, improving working conditions, or waste management processes, will not be included.

2. Publication date: Studies published in 2006 (to align with the 2006 Charities Act), or later

3. Language: Studies published in English

4. Design: Any empirical study design

5. Geographical location: Studies relevant to the UK. Studies with an international focus, such as systematic reviews or international surveys, were included if they included data from the UK.


Identification of potential studies: search strategyWe employed a systematic three-pronged strategy to identify studies:

a) a search of bibliographic databases; b) a search of UK academic research centre websites); and c) a search for systematic reviews from the Centre for Business Management and using Google Scholar.

a) A search of bibliographic databasesWe conducted a search of multidisciplinary databases through ProQuest:

Arts & Humanities Database ABI/INFORM Collection (1971 - current) Asian & European Business Collection (1971 - current) Business Market Research Collection (1986 - current) Education Database (1988 - current) Political Science Database (1985 - current) Psychology Database Research Library Social Science Database Sociology Database (1985 - current)

b) A search of relevant UK websitesWe searched the websites of academic centres which focus on charity and philanthropic research. We looked for published reports and peer reviewed articles:

c) A search for systematic reviewsWe searched sources rich in systematic reviews of social science:

The Campbell Library https://campbellcollaboration.org/library.html Centre for Evidence Based Management https://www.cebma.org/

We searched for systematic reviews or syntheses using simple search terms in Google and Google Scholar.

Screening studies: selecting studies for inclusionThe results from the bibliographic searches and website searches were uploaded into the EPPI-Centre’s dedicated software EPPI-Reviewer 4 (Thomas et al, 2010) and duplicate records removed.

Studies were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria against the title and abstract with full reports retrieved for those studies that appear to meet the criteria or where we have insufficient information to be sure. The inclusion and exclusion criteria was re-applied to the full reports and those that do meet these initial criteria were excluded.

Describing included studiesA ‘framework synthesis method’ was used, by which the literature was described according to the initial classification system. A coding tool (Appendix 4. Coding tool) was developed and applied to each initially to the titles and abstracts of studies (if available) and then the full reports. As more literature was identified, and more issues and themes discovered, this classification system was refined and the coding of individual studies amended. The framework was used to identify patterns and trends, enabling studies with shared characteristics to be grouped as well as identifying gaps in research.


https://www.cebma.org/

https://campbellcollaboration.org/library.html

Appendix 2: Journal articles including UK dataSystematic reviews

Bekkers R, and Wiepking P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms That Drive Charitable Giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), pp.924–973.

Catton M, Hogg E, and Hardill I. (2011). Improving quality of life in ageing populations: What can volunteering do?. Maturitas, 70, pp.328–332.

Gautier A, and Pache A-C. (2015). Research on corporate philanthropy: a review and assessment. J Bus Ethics, 126, pp.343-369.

Liket K, and Simaens A. (2015). Battling the devolution in the research on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, pp.285-308.

Lu J. (2016). The philanthropic consequence of government grants to nonprofit organizations: a meta-analysis. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(4), pp.381-400.

Shoham A, Ruvio A, Vigoda-Gadot E, and Schwabsky N. (2006). Market orientations in the nonprofit and Voluntary Sector: A meta-analysis of their relationships with organizational performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(3), pp.453-476.

Non-systematic reviews

Alcock P. (2010). ‘A strategic unity: defining the third sector in the UK. Voluntary Sector Review, 1(1), pp.5-24.

Arvidson M, Lyon F, McKay S, and Domenico M. (2013). Valuing the social? The nature and controversies of measuring Social Return on Investment (SROI). Voluntary Sector Review, 4(1), pp.3-18.

Body A, and Breeze B. (2016). What are 'unpopular causes' and how can they achieve fundraising success?. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), pp.57-70.

Breeze B. (2015). How donors choose charities: the role of personal taste and experiences in giving decisions. . Voluntary Sector Review, 4(2), pp.165-183.

Field J A. (2016). Consumption in lieu of membership: reconfiguring popular charitable action in post-world war II Britain. Voluntas, 27(2), pp.979-997.

Hogg E, and Baines S. (2011). Changing responsibilities and roles of the voluntary and community sector in the welfare mix: a review. Social Policy and Society, 10(3), pp.341-352.

Macmillan R. (2013). Distinction' in the third sector’. Voluntary Sector Review, 4(1), pp.39-54.

Macmillan R (2011) ‘Supporting' the voluntary sector in an age of austerity: the UK coalition government's consultation on improving support for frontline civil society organisations in England. Voluntary Sector Review 2(1), 115-124.


Redmond M. (2016). From "intrusive" and "excessive" to financially abusive? Charitable and religious fund-raising amongst vulnerable older people. The Journal of Adult Protection, 18(2), pp.86-95.

Scoping review

Clifford D, Geyne Rajme F, Smith G, Edwards R, Buchs M, and Saunders C. (2013). Mapping the environmental third sector in England: a distinctive field of activity. Voluntary Sector Review, 4(2), pp.241-264.

Hardwick R, and Anderson R Cooper C. (2015). How do third sector organisations use research and other knowledge? A systematic scoping review. Implementation Science, 10(84), pp.1-12.

Rapid evidence assessmentNone

Randomised controlled trial

Boram L, Ian F, and Fillis I. (2017). Nudging art lovers to donate. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(4), pp.837-858.

Cotterill Sarah, John Peter, and Richardson Liz. (2013). The impact of a pledge request and the promise of publicity: a randomized controlled trial of charitable donations. Social Science Quarterly, 94(1), pp.200-216.

MacDonnell R, and White K. (2015). How construals of money versus time impact consumer charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), pp.551-563.

Sanders M. (2017). Social influences on charitable giving in the workplace. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, pp.129-136.

Smith RW, and Faro D Burson K A. (2013). More for the many: the influence of entitativity on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), pp.961-976.

Tonin M, and Vlassopoulos M. (2013). Experimental evidence of self-image concerns as motivation for giving. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 90, pp.19-27.

Tonin Mi, and Vlassopoulo M. (2017). Sharing one's fortune? An experimental study on earned income and giving. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, pp.112-118.

Controlled trial

Aldridge N, and Fowles J. (2013). Cause-related marketing and customer donations in an online marketplace. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(1), pp.52-59.

Christie M. (2007). An examination of the disparity between hypothetical and actual willingness to pay using the contingent valuation method: the case of red kite conservation in the united kingdom. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55(2), pp.159-169.


Sonntag A, and Zizzo D J. (2015). On Reminder Effects, Drop-Outs and Dominance: Evidence from an Online Experiment on Charitable Giving. PLoS One, 10(8), pp.1-17.

Case study

Alcock P, and Kendall J. (2011). Constituting the third sector: processes of decontestation and contention under the UK Labour Governments In England. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, 22(3), pp.450-469.

Alcock P, Kendall J, and Parry J. (2011). From the third sector to the Big Society: consensus or contention in the 2010 UK General Election?. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(3), pp.347–63.

Alcock P. (2012). New policy spaces: the impact of devolution on third sector policy in the UK. Social Policy and Administration, 46(2), pp.1467-95.


Buckingham H. (2009). Competition and contracts in the voluntary sector: exploring the implications for homelessness service providers in Southampton. Policy and Politics, 37(2), pp.235-54.

Buckingham H. (2010). Capturing diversity: a typology of third sector organisations’ responses to contracting based on empirical evidence from homelessness services’. Journal of Social Policy, 41(3), pp.569 - 589.

Buckingham H. (2011). Hybridity, diversity and the division of labour in the third sector: what can we learn from homelessness organisations in the UK?. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), pp.157–75.

Dickinson H, and Neal C. (2011). Single point of access to third sector services: the Conwy collaborative approach’. Journal of Integrated Care, 19(2), pp.37-48.

Hogg E, Hardill I, and Ramsey J. (2015). Co-producing knowledge: reflections on the benefits and challenges of researching in partnership with voluntary sector organisations. Voluntary Sector Review, 5(3), pp.399-406.

Lim M, and Moufahim M. (2015). The spectacularization of suffering: an analysis of the use of celebrities in 'Comic Relief' UK's charity fundraising campaigns. Journal of Marketing Management, 31(5-6), pp.525-545.

Lucas Evie. (2017). Reinventing the rattling tin: How UK charities use Facebook in fundraising. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(2), pp.1-9.

Maclean M, Harvey C, and Gordon J. (2012). Social innovation, social entrepreneurship and the practice of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy . International Small Business Journal, 31(7), pp.747–763.


Marshall N, Dawley S, Pike A, and Pollard J. (2018). Geographies of corporate philanthropy: the northern rock foundation. Environment and Planning A, 50(2), pp.266-287.

Murdock A, Wilding K, and Sharrif R. (2013). Knowledge exchange between academia and the third sector. Evidence and Policy, 9(3), pp.419-30.

Pollard J, Datta K, James A, and Akli Q. (2016). Islamic charitable infrastructure and giving in east london: everyday economic-development geographies in practice. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(4), pp.871-896.

Polonsky M J, and Sargeant A. (2007). Managing the donation service experience. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(4), pp.459-476.

Reid D A. (2010). Education as a philanthropic enterprise: the dissenting academies of eighteenth-century England. History of Education, 39(3), pp.299-317.

Roddy S, Strange JM, and Bertrand T. (2015). Humanitarian accountability, bureaucracy, and self-regulation: the view from the archive. Disasters, 39, pp.S188- S2003.

Similon A. (2015). Self-regulation systems for npo coordination: strengths and weaknesses of label and umbrella mechanisms. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 86(1), pp.89-104.

Cross sectional

Bennett R. (2007). The use of marketing metrics by British fundraising charities: a survey of current practice. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(9/10), pp.959-989.

Bennett R. (2009). Regret and satisfaction as determinants of lapsed donor recommencement decisions. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 21(4), pp. 347-366.

Bennett R, and Ali-Choudhury R. (2010). Internationalisation of British fundraising charities: a two-phase empirical study. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15(1), pp.28-51.

Bennett R, and Savani S. (2011). Sources of new ideas for charity fundraising: an empirical study. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(2), pp.121-138.

Bennett R. (2012). Why urban poor donate: a study of low-income charitable giving in London. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), pp.870-891.

Bennett R. (2012). Selection of individuals to serve on major gift fundraising teams: a study of membership choice criteria. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(1), pp.49-64.

Bennett R. (2013). Elements, causes and effects of donor engagement among supporters of UK charities. International Review on Public and Non - Profit Marketing, 10(3), pp.201-220.

Bennett R. (2013). Factors influencing the probability of early lapse of face to face recruited charity donors. International Review on Public and Non - Profit Marketing, 10(2), pp.129-142.


Bennett R. (2013). Factors influencing the break even probabilities of agency recruited low value charity donors. Voluntas, 24(4), pp.1091-1112.

Breeze B, Gouwenberg B, Schuyt T, and Wilkinson I. (2011). What role for public policy in promoting philanthropy? . Public Management Review, 13(8), pp.1179-1195.

Chatzidakis Andreas, Hibbert Sally, and Winklhofer Heidi. (2016). Are consumers’ reasons for and against behaviour distinct?. European Journal of Marketing, 50(1/2), pp.124-144.

Clifford D, Geyne-Rahme F, and Mohan J. (2013). Variations between organisations and localities in government funding of third-sector activity: evidence from the national survey of third-sector organisations in England. Urban Studies, 50(5), pp.959-976.

Clifford D, and Backus P. (2012). Are big charities becoming more dominant? Cross-sectional and longitudinal perspectives. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 17(3), pp.761-776.

Cluff A. (2009). Dispelling the myths about major donor fundraising. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14(4), pp.371-377.

Connolly C, and Hyndman N. (2013). Towards charity accountability: narrowing the gap between provision and needs?. Public Management Review, 15(7), pp.945-968.

Fleming M, and Tappin R. (2009). Face-to-face donor cancellation rates (attrition): establishing a benchmark. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14(4), pp.341-352.

Kreander N, Beattie V, and McPhail K. (2009). Putting our money where their mouth is: Alignment of charitable aims with charity investments - Tensions in policy and practice. The British Accounting Review, 41(3), pp.154-168.

Michaelidou N, Micevski M, and Siamagka NT. (2015). Consumers' intention to donate to two children's charity brands: a comparison of Barnardo's and BBC Children in Need. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 24(2), pp.134-146.

Sargeant A, Jay E, and Lee S. (2008). The true cost of fundraising: Should donors care?. Journal of Direct, and Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(4), pp.340-353.

Sargeant A, and Hudson J. (2008). Donor retention: an exploratory study of door-to-door recruits. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(1), pp.89-101.

Sargeant A, Lee S, and Jay E. (2009). Communicating the "realities" of charity costs: an institute of fundraising initiative. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(2), pp.333-342.

Skarmeas D, and Haseeb SA. (2011). Relationship quality and giving behaviour in the UK fundraising sector. European Journal of Marketing, 45(5), pp.720-738.

Smith S. (2012). Increasing charitable giving: what can we learn from economics?. Fiscal Studies, 33(4), pp.449-466.


Wiepking P, and Breeze B. (2012). Feeling poor, acting stingy: the effect of money perception on charitable giving. . International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, and 1, 17, pp.13–24.

Correlational study

Adams M, Hoejmose S, and Kastrinaki Z. (2017). Corporate philanthropy and risk management: an investigation of reinsurance and charitable giving in insurance firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(1), pp.1.

Bennett R. (2009). Impulsive donation decisions during online browsing of charity websites. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8(2/3), pp.116-134.


Brammer SJ, Pavelin S, and Porter LA. (2009). Corporate charitable giving, multinational companies and countries of concern. The Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), pp.575-596.

Feldman Seth D. (2010). An examination of the relationship between fundraising income and media hits at the institute of cancer research, London UK. The ISM Journal of International Business, 1(1), pp.18-14B.

Sargeant A, and Woodliffe L. (2007). Building Donor Loyalty: the antecedents and role of commitment in the context of charity giving. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 18(2), pp.47-68.

Longitudinal study


Process evaluation

Cherrett T Shingleton D, Norton B, McLeod F, Forey C, Dickinson J, Winstanley C, Davies N, Speed C, Norgate S. (2015). Developing a smartphone app to enhance Oxfam's supply chain visibility. International Journal of Logistics, 18(2), pp.155.


NSPCC (2011). NSPCC trains its fund-raisers to ask for more. Human Resource Management International Digest, 19(3), pp.18-20.


Qualitative study

Breeze B, and Dean J. (2012). Pictures of Me: User views on the representation of need in homelessness fundraising appeals. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(2), pp.132-143.

Breeze B, and Jollymore G. (2017). Understanding solicitation: Beyond the binary variable of being asked or not being asked. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), pp.1-7.


Campbell D, and Slack R. (2008). Corporate "philanthropy strategy" and "strategic philanthropy": some insights from voluntary disclosures in annual reports. Business and Society, 47(2), pp.187-212.



Daly S. (2013). Philanthropy, the new professionals and higher education: the advent of directors of development and alumni relations. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(1), pp.21-33.

Dey P, and Teasdale S. (2013). Social enterprise and dis/identification: the politics of identity work in the English third sector. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 35(2), pp.248-270.

Dogra N. (2007). 'Reading NGOs visually' - Implications of visual images for NGO management. Journal of International Development, 19(2), pp.161-171.

Eikenberry A M, and Breeze B. (2015). Growing philanthropy through collaboration: the landscape of giving circles in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Voluntary Sector Review, 6(1), pp.41-59.

Eikenberry A M. (2017). Who benefits from giving circles in the U.S. and the U.K.?. The Foundation Review, 9(3), pp.33-45.

Faulkner M, and Kennedy R. (2008). A new tool for pre-testing direct mail. International Journal of Market Research, 50(4), pp.469-490.

Kelly S P, Morgan G G, and Coule T M. (2014). Celebrity altruism: the good, the bad and the ugly in relationships with fundraising charities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(2), pp.57-75.

Lim M, and Moufahim M. (2015). The spectacularization of suffering: an analysis of the use of celebrities in 'Comic Relief' UK's charity fundraising campaigns. Journal of Marketing Management, 31(5-6), pp.525-545.


Maclean M, Harvey C, Gordon J, and Shaw E. (2015). Identity, storytelling and the philanthropic journey. : Human Relations, pp.. .

Mills A, Meek R, and Gojkovic D. (2011). Exploring the relationship between the voluntary sector and the state in criminal justice . Voluntary Sector Review, 2(2), pp.193–211.

Sanghera B. (2011). Charitable giving, everyday morality and a critique of bourdieusian theory: an investigation into disinterested judgements, moral concerns and reflexivity in the UK. The Sociological Review, 64(2), pp.294-311.

Sargeant A, and Woodliffe L. (2007). Building donor loyalty: the antecedents and role of commitment in the context of charity giving. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 18(2), pp.47-68.

Warren A Hoyler M, and Bell M. (2016). From 'shadowy cabal' to new profession: networks of cooperation and competition in UK higher education fundraising. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(5), pp.837-854.

Secondary data analysis


Atkinson AB, Backus PG, Micklewright J, Pharoah C, and Schnepf SV. (2012). Charitable giving for overseas development: UK trends over a quarter century. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, and Statistics in Society, 175(1), pp.167.

Bog M, Harmgart H, Huck S, and Jeffers AM. (2012). Fundraising on the Internet. Kyklos, 65(1), pp.18-30.

Buraschi A, and Cornelli F. (2014). The Economics of Donations and Enlightened Self-Interest. European Financial Management, 20(1), pp.1-32.


Clifford D. (2012). Voluntary sector organisations working at the neighbourhood level in England: patterns by local area deprivation’. Environment and Planning A, 44(2), pp.1148-1164.





Glanville J L, Paxton P, and Wang Y. (2016). Social capital and generosity: a multilevel analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), pp.526-547.

Livingstone N. (2011). The changing structure of charity retailers in Edinburgh’s built environment. Local Economy, 26(2), pp.122-133.

McCulloch A, Mohan J, and Smith P. (2012). Patterns of social capital, voluntary activity, and area deprivation in England’. Environment and Planning, 44(5), pp.1130-1147.

McGranahan L. (2009). The widow's offering: Inheritance, family structure, and the charitable gifts of women. Explorations in Economic History, 46(3), pp.356-367.

Mckay S, Moro D, Teasdale S, and Clifford D. (2015). The marketisation of charities in England and wales. Voluntas, 26(1), pp.336-354.

Mickelwright J, and Schnepf S V. (2009). Who gives charitable donations for overseas development?. Journal of Social Policy, 38, pp.317-341.

Mohan J. (2012). Entering the lists: what can we learn about the voluntary sector in England from listings produced by local infrastructure bodies?. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), pp.197-215.


Sargeant A, Hudson J, and Wilson S. (2012). Donor complaints about fundraising: what are they and why should we care?. Voluntas, 23(3), pp.791-807.

Teasdale S, McKay S, Phillimore J, and Teasdale N. (2011). Exploring gender and social entrepreneurship: women’s leadership, employment and participation in the third sector and social enterprises. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(1), pp.57-76.

Teasdale S, Kerlin J, Young D, and Soh J I. (2013). Oil and water rarely mix: Exploring the relative stability of Non-profit revenue mixes over time. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), pp.69-97.

van Nederveen ME, and Teeuwen D. (2014). The stability of voluntarism: financing social care in early modern Dutch towns compared with the English poor law, c. 1600-1800. European Review of Economic History, 18(1), pp.82-105.

Survey reliability and validity development

Faulkner M, and Kennedy R. (2008). A new tool for pre-testing direct mail. International Journal of Market Research, 50(4), pp.469-490.

Lee Z, and Sargeant A. (2011). Dealing with social desirability bias: an application to charitable giving. European Journal of Marketing, 45(5), pp.703-719.


Street level mapping

Soteri-Proctor A, and Alcock P. (2012). Micro-mapping: what lies beneath the third sector radar?. Voluntary Sector, 3(3), pp.379-398.

Modelling









Bog M, Harmgart H, Huck S, and Jeffers AM. (2012). Fundraising on the Internet. Kyklos, 65(1), pp.18-30.

Buraschi A, and Cornelli F. (2014). The economics of donations and enlightened self-interest. European Financial Management, 20(1), pp.1-32.

Glanville J L, Paxton P, and Wang Y. (2016). Social capital and generosity: a multilevel analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), pp.526-547.







Smith S, Windmeijer F, and Wright E. (2015). Peer effects in charitable giving: evidence from the (running) field. Economic Journal, 125(585), pp.1053-1071.

Historical analysis

Field J A. (2016). Consumption in lieu of membership: reconfiguring popular charitable action in post-world war II Britain. Voluntas, 27(2), pp.979-997.


Roddy S, Strange JM, and Bertrand T. (2015). Humanitarian accountability, bureaucracy, and self-regulation: the view from the archive. Disasters, 39, pp.S188- S2003.

van Nederveen ME, and Teeuwen D. (2014). The stability of voluntarism: financing social care in early modern Dutch towns compared with the English poor law, c. 1600-1800. European Review of Economic History, 18(1), pp.82-105.

Benchmarking methodology

Aldrich T. (2009). Benchmarking the fundraising performance of UK charities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 14(4), 353.

Appendix 3: Research outputs from UK specialist centres

Systematic reviews

Gautier A, and Pache A-C. (2015). Research on corporate philanthropy: a review and assessment. J Bus Ethics, 126, pp.343-369.

Hill M. (2012). The relationship between volunteering and charitable giving: review of evidence. : CGAP Working paper

Nichols G, Knight C, Mirfin-Boukouris H, Uri C, Hogg E, and Storr R. (2016). Motivations of sport volunteers in England: A review for Sport England. : Sport England.


Non-systematic reviews

Alcock P. (2010). ‘A strategic unity: defining the third sector in the UK. Voluntary Sector Review, 1(1), pp.5-24.

Arvidson M, Lyon F, McKay S, and Domenico M. (2013). Valuing the social? The nature and controversies of measuring Social Return on Investment (SROI). Voluntary Sector Review, 4(1), pp.3-18.

Breeze B. (2009). Natural Philanthropists: Findings of the Family Business Philanthropy and Social Responsibility Inquiry. : Institute for Family Business, UK

Body A Breeze B. (2015). Rising to the Challenge; A study of philanthropic support for 'unpopular' causes . : University of Kent. UK



Centre for Philanthropy. (2013). Philanthropy and the cultural and heritage sector: A Literature Review. : Heritage Lottery Fund. UK.

Harvey C, Maclean M, Price M, and Harizanova V. (2018). Philanthropy- The North East Story. : Newcastle University. UK

Harvey C, Maclean M, Price M, and Harizanova V. (2018). North East Philanthropy in the Middle Ages (1100-1500) . : Newcastle University. UK

Macmillan R. (2013). Distinction in the third sector’. Voluntary Sector Review, 4(1), pp.39-54.

MacQuillin I, Sargeant A, and Shang J. (2016). Relationship fundraising: Where do we go from here? Vol 2: Review of theory from social psychology. : Plymouth University. UK

MacQuillin I. (2016). Relationship fundraising: Where do we go from here? Vol 3: Trends and challenges identified by practitioners. : Plymouth University. UK

MacQuillin I, and Sargeant A. (2016). Vol 4: Summary report: the relationship fundraising review.. : Plymouth University. UK

MacQuillin I. (2016). Rights stuff: Fundraising’s ethics gap and a new normative theory of fundraising v1.1, . : Plymouth University. UK

Pharoah C Harrow J. (2009). Charitable legacies in an environment of change. : The Smith Institute. UK

Pharoah C. (2010). The legacy of the recession – a report on recent trends in charitable bequests. : CASS Business school. UK

Sargeant A, and Day H. (2017). Great fundraising events: From experience to transformation. : Plymouth University. UK


Sergeant A. (2016). Relationship fundraising: where do we go from here? Volume 1 – review of theory from relationship marketing. Plymouth: Plymouth University. UK

Shang J, and Sergeant A. (2017). Insights into the future of philanthropic innovation: Philanthropic Literacy for Future Leaders. The Resource Alliance. UK

Shang J, and Sargeant A. (2018). How boards can help create sustainable growth in schools and H.E. Institutions. Plymouth University. UK

Scoping review


Macmillan R, and Ellis Paine A. (2014). Research Report 125: Building capabilities in the voluntary sector: What the evidence tells us. University of Birmingham. UK

Rapid evidence assessmentNone

Randomised controlled trialNone

Controlled trial

Centre for Philanthropy, and University of Kent. (2017). Evaluation of the Catalyst: Endowment Grant Programme. : University of Kent.UK

Centre for sustainable philanthropy. (2015). The Science of legacy fundraising . : Plymouth University.UK

Case study

Alcock P, and Kendall J. (2011). Constituting the third sector: processes of decontestation and contention under the UK Labour Governments In England. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, 22(3), pp.450-469.

Alcock P, Kendall J, and Parry J. (2011). From the third sector to the Big Society: consensus or contention in the 2010 UK General Election?. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(3), pp.347–63.

Alcock P. (2012). New policy spaces: the impact of devolution on third sector policy in the UK. Social Policy and Administration, 46(2), pp.1467-95.

Baker L, and Turner K. (2018). The value of small: In-depth research into the distinctive contribution, value and experiences of small and medium-sized charities in Ealing . : Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales. UK


Bennett E, and Batty E. (2018). The value of small: In-depth research into the distinctive contribution, value and experiences of small and medium-sized charities in Wrexham . : Sheffield Hallam University. UK

Body A Breeze B. (2015). Rising to the Challenge; A study of philanthropic support for 'unpopular' causes . : University of Kent. UK


Bradley K. (2009). Poverty, philanthropy and the state: Charities and the working classes in London, 1918–79. : Manchester University Press. UK.

Breeze B (2014) Philanthropic Journeys: New insights into the triggers and barriers for long term giving and volunteering. Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent.

Buckingham H. (2010). Capturing diversity: a typology of third sector organisations’ responses to contracting based on empirical evidence from homelessness services’. Journal of Social Policy, 41(3), pp.569 - 589.

Buckingham H. (2011). Hybridity, diversity and the division of labour in the third sector: what can we learn from homelessness organisations in the UK?. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), pp.157–75.

Coule T, Patmore B, and Bennett E. (2018). The value of small: In-depth research into the distinctive contribution, value and experiences of small and medium-sized charities in Salford . : Sheffield Hallam University. UK

Coule T, and Morgan GG. (2008). Towards a Volunteering Strategy for Sheffield . : Sheffield First Partnership. UK

Dayson C, Baker L, Rees J, Batty E, Bennett E, Damm C, Coule T, Patmore B, Garforth H, Hennessy C, Turner K, Jacklin-Jarvis C, and Terry V. (2018). The value of small: In-depth research into the distinctive contribution, value and experiences of small and medium-sized charities in England and Wales . : Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales, UK

Dickinson H, and Neal C. (2011). Single point of access to third sector services: the Conwy collaborative approach’. Journal of Integrated Care, 19(2), pp.37-48.

Harvey C, Maclean M, Price M, and Harizanova V. (2018). Researching philanthropy, economy and society in North East England . : Newcastle University. UK

Hogg E, Hardill I, and Ramsey J. (2015). Co-producing knowledge: reflections on the benefits and challenges of researching in partnership with voluntary sector organisations. Voluntary Sector Review, 5(3), pp.399-406.


Lindsey R. (2012). Exploring Local Hotspots and Deserts: investigating the local distribution of charitable resources. : University of Southampton. UK

Lindsey R. (2013). Exploring local hotspots and deserts: investigating the local distribution of charitable resources. Voluntary Sector Review, 4(1), pp.96-116.

MacQuillin I, Sargeant A, and Shang J. (2016). Relationship fundraising: where do we go from here? Vol 2: Review of theory from social psychology. : Plymouth University. UK

MacQuillin I. (2016). Relationship fundraising: where do we go from here? Vol 3: Trends and challenges identified by practitioners. : Plymouth University. UK

Rees J, Terry V, and Jacklin-Jarvis C. (2018). The value of small: In-depth research into the distinctive contribution, value and experiences of small and medium-sized charities in Bassetlaw : Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales. UK

Webster S, Leman J, Morgan GG, and Tinklin T. (2007). Mapping of Funding Advisers Networks in England and Implications for a Funding Advice National Network : ChangeUp Finance Hub, UK

Cross sectional

Bennett R. (2007). The use of marketing metrics by British fundraising charities: a survey of current practice. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(9/10), pp.959-989.










Breeze B, Flaxman K. (2017). Coutts Million Pound Donor Report. https://www.coutts.com/insight-articles/news/2017/million-pound-donors-report-2017.html?extcam=donorsreport

Breeze B, Gouwenberg B, Schuyt T, and Wilkinson I. (2011). What role for public policy in promoting philanthropy? . Public Management Review, 13(8), pp.1179-1195.


Clifford D, Geyne-Rahme F, and Mohan J. (2013). Variations between organisations and localities in government funding of third-sector activity: evidence from the national survey of third-sector organisations in England. Urban Studies, 50(5), pp.959-976.



Connolly C, and Hyndman N. (2013). Towards charity accountability: Narrowing the gap between provision and needs?. Public Management Review, 15(7), pp.945-968.

Coule T, Pearson S, and Macmillan R (2008). Valuing the Voluntary and Community Sector in Rotherham in 2008. Published research report for Voluntary Action Rotherham (undertaken jointly by CRESR/CVSR).

Fleming M, and Tappin R. (2009). Face-to-face donor cancellation rates (attrition): establishing a benchmark. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14(4), pp.341-352.

Kreander N, Beattie V, and McPhail K. (2009). Putting our money where their mouth is: Alignment of charitable aims with charity investments - Tensions in policy and practice. The British Accounting Review, 41(3), pp.154-168.


Sargeant A, Jay E, and Lee S. (2008). The true cost of fundraising: Should donors care?. Journal of Direct, and Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(4), pp.340-353.





Smith S. (2012). Increasing charitable giving: what can we learn from economics?. Fiscal Studies, 33(4), pp.449-466.

Wiepking P, and Breeze B. (2012). Feeling Poor, Acting Stingy: the effect of money perception on charitable giving. . International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, and 1, 17, pp.13–24.

Correlational study

Adams M, Hoejmose S, and Kastrinaki Z. (2017). Corporate philanthropy and risk management: an investigation of reinsurance and charitable giving in insurance firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(1), p.1.

Bennett R. (2009). Impulsive donation decisions during online browsing of charity websites. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8(2/3), pp.116-134.


Brammer SJ, Pavelin S, and Porter LA. (2009). Corporate charitable giving, multinational companies and countries of concern. The Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), pp.575-596.

Feldman Seth D. (2010). An examination of the relationship between fundraising income and media hits at the institute of cancer research, London UK. The ISM Journal of International Business, 1(1), pp.18-14B.


Longitudinal study

Breeze B, Flaxman K. (2017). Coutts Million Pound Donor Report. https://www.coutts.com/insight-articles/news/2017/million-pound-donors-report-2017.html?extcam=donorsreport



Process evaluation


Qualitative study

Baker L, Harris M, Moran R, and Morgan GG. (2012). The impact of the public benefit requirement in the Charities Act 2006: perceptions, knowledge and experience : The Charity Commission. UK

Breeze B. (2009). Natural philanthropists: findings of the family business philanthropy and social responsibility inquiry. : Institute for Family Business. UK

Breeze B. (2010). How donors choose charities: Findings of a study of donor perceptions of the nature and distribution of charitable benefit. : University of Kent. UK

Breeze B, and Jollymore G. (2017). Understanding solicitation: Beyond the binary variable of being asked or not being asked. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), pp.1-7.

Breeze B. (2017). The New Fundraisers: Who organises charitable giving in contemporary society?. : Policy Press. UK

Breeze B, and Dean J. (2012). User views of fundraising. : University of Kent. UK


Body A, Holman K, and Hogg E. (2016). To bridge the gap: Voluntary action in primary education. : Canterbury Christchurch University. UK

Centre for Philanthropy, and University of Kent. (2017). Evaluation of the Catalyst: Endowment Grant Programme. : University of Kent. UK

Centre for Philanthropy. (2013). Philanthropy and the Cultural and Heritage sector: A Literature Review. : Heritage Lottery Fund. UK

Dey P, and Teasdale S. (2013). Social enterprise and dis/identification: the politics of identity work in the English third sector. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 35(2), pp.248-270.

Hogg E. (2014). Fundraising for small and medium sized charities: The views of East Kent Charities. : University of Kent. UK

Hogg E. (2016). What regulation, who pays? Public opinion and charity regulation: a report for the Charity Finance Group. : Charity Finance Group. UK


Kelly S P, Morgan G G, and Coule T M. (2014). Celebrity altruism: the good, the bad and the ugly in relationships with fundraising charities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(2), pp.57-75.

Macmillan R, and Ellis Paine A. (2014). Research Report 125: Building capabilities in the voluntary sector: What the evidence tells us : University of Birmingham. UK

MacQuillin I, and Sargeant A. (2016). Vol 4: Summary report: the relationship fundraising review: Plymouth University. UK

Milling J, McCabe A, Simpson R, and Fyfe H. (2015). Understanding Cultural Value: The Amateur and Voluntary Arts. : Arts & Humanities Research Council. UK

Mills A, Meek R, and Gojkovic D. (2011). Exploring the relationship between the voluntary sector and the state in criminal justice . Voluntary Sector Review, 2(2), pp.193–211.

Morgan GG, and Fletcher NJ. (2011). Public Benefit Reporting by Charities . : Sheffield Hallam University. UK

Resource Alliance. (2012). Risk and Philanthropy: Systemisation, Education and Professionalisation. : Resource Alliance . UK

Sanghera B. (2011). Charitable giving, everyday morality and a critique of bourdieusian theory: an investigation into disinterested judgements, moral concerns and reflexivity in the UK. The Sociological Review, 64(2), pp.294-311.

Sargeant A, and Day H. (2017). Great fundraising events: from experience to transformation. : Plymouth University. UK

Shang J, and Sergeant A. (2017). Insights into the Future of Philanthropic Innovation: Philanthropic Literacy for Future Leaders. : The Resource Alliance. UK

Shang J, and Sargeant A. (2018). How boards can help create sustainable growth in schools and H.E. institutions. : Plymouth University. UK

Webster S, Leman J, Morgan GG, and Tinklin T. (2007). Mapping of funding advisers networks in England and implications for a funding advice national network : ChangeUp Finance Hub. UK

Secondary data analysis

Backus P, and McKenzie T. (2011). The market for charity in England and Wales . : CGAP Working paper. UK

Body A, and Hogg E. (2018). A bridge Too Far? The increasing role of voluntary action in primary education. : University of Kent. UK


Body A, Holman K, and Hogg E. (2016). To bridge the gap: Voluntary action in primary education. : Canterbury Christchurch University. UK

Centre for Philanthropy, and University of Kent. (2017). Evaluation of the Catalyst: Endowment grant programme. : University of Kent. UK

Clifford D. (2012). Voluntary sector organisations working at the neighbourhood level in England: patterns by local area deprivation’. Environment and Planning A, 44(2), pp.1148-1164.



Cowley E, McKenzie T, Pharoah C, and Smith S. (2011). The new state of donation: Three decades of household giving to charity 1978 – 2008. : CASS Business school. UK

Macmillan R, and Ellis Paine A. (2014). Research Report 125: Building capabilities in the voluntary sector: What the evidence tells us . : University of Birmingham. UK

McCulloch A, Mohan J, and Smith P. (2012). Patterns of social capital, voluntary activity, and area deprivation in England’. Environment and Planning, 44(5), pp.1130-1147.

Mckay S, Moro D, Teasdale S, and Clifford D. (2015). The marketisation of charities in England and Wales. Voluntas, 26(1), pp.336-354.

Mocroft I. (2011). Government Expenditure on the Voluntary Sector in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. : CGAP Working paper. UK

Mohan J, and Barnard S. (2013). Comparisons between the characteristics of charities in Scotland and those of England and Wales . : University of Southampton. UK

Morgan GG, and Fletcher NJ. (2011). Public benefit reporting by charities . : Sheffield Hallam University. UK

Pharoah C, and Harrow J. (2010). Payout with an English accent: Exploring the case for a foundation ‘distribution quota’ in the UK. In: ARNOVA 39th Annual Conference. UK

Pharoah C, and McKenzie T. (2013). Giving back to communities of residence and of origin: An analysis of remittances and charitable donations in the UK. : Alliance publishing trust. UK

Resource Alliance. (2012). Risk and Philanthropy: Systemisation, Education and Professionalisation. : Resource Alliance. UK


Teasdale S, McKay S, Phillimore J, and Teasdale N. (2011). Exploring gender and social entrepreneurship: women’s leadership, employment and participation in the third sector and social enterprises. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(1), pp.57-76.

Teasdale S, Kerlin J, Young D, and Soh J I. (2013). Oil and water rarely mix: Exploring the relative stability of Non-profit revenue mixes over time. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), pp.69-97.

Survey reliability and validity developmentNone

Street level mapping

Soteri-Proctor A, and Alcock P. (2012). Micro-mapping: what lies beneath the third sector radar?. Voluntary Sector, 3(3), pp.379-398.

ModellingNone

Historical analysis

Bradley K. (2009). Poverty, philanthropy and the state: Charities and the working classes in London, 1918–79. : Manchester University Press. UK

Fitton T. (2015). Hidden History: Philanthropy at the University of Kent. : University of Kent. UK

Harvey C, Maclean M, Price M, and Harizanova V. (2018). Philanthropy- The North East Story. : Newcastle University. UK

Benchmarking methodology

Aldrich T. (2009). Benchmarking the fundraising performance of UK charities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 14(4), 353.


Appendix 4. Coding tool

Year of publication

Type of organisationInternational Classification of Non-profit organisations

Group 1. Culture and recreation Media and communications. Production and dissemination of information and communication; includes radio and TV stations; publishing of books, journals, newspapers and newsletters; film production; and libraries.

Visual arts, architecture, ceramic art. Production, dissemination and display of visual arts and architecture; includes sculpture, photographic societies, painting, drawing, design centres and architectural associations.

Performing arts. Performing arts centres, companies and associations; includes theatre, dance, ballet, opera, orchestras, chorals and music ensembles.

Historical, literary and humanistic societies. Promotion and appreciation of the humanities, preservation of historical and cultural artefacts and commemoration of historical events; includes historical societies, poetry and literary societies, language associations, reading promotion, war memorials and commemorative funds and associations.

Museums. General and specialized museums covering art, history, sciences, technology and culture.

Zoos and aquariums.

Sports. Provision of amateur sport, training, physical fitness and sport competition services and events; includes fitness and wellness centres.

Recreation and social clubs. Provision of recreational facilities and services to individuals and communities; includes playground associations, country clubs, men's and women's clubs, touring clubs and leisure clubs.

Service clubs. Membership organizations providing services to members and local communities, for example Lions, Zonta International, Rotary Club and KiwanisGroup 2. Education and research Elementary, primary and secondary education: Education at elementary, primary and secondary levels; includes pre-school organisations other than day care.

Higher education: Higher learning, providing academic degrees; includes universities, business management schools, law schools, medical schools.

Vocational / technical schools: Technical and vocational training specifically geared towards gaining employment; includes trade schools, paralegal training and secretarial schools.

Adult / continuing education: Institutions engaged in providing education and training in addition to the formal educational system; includes schools of continuing studies,


correspondence schools, night schools, and sponsored literacy and reading programs.

Medical research: Research in the medical field; includes research on specific diseases, disorders, or medical disciplines.

Science and technology: Research in the physical and life sciences and engineering and technology.

Social sciences, policy studies: Research and analysis in the social sciences and policy area.Group 3. HealthHospitals. Primarily inpatient medical care and treatment.

Rehabilitation. Inpatient health care and rehabilitative therapy to individuals suffering from physical impairments due to injury, genetic defect, or disease and requiring extensive physiotherapy or similar forms of care.

Nursing homes. Inpatient convalescent care, residential care, as well as primary health care services; includes homes for the frail elderly and nursing homes for the severely handicapped.

Psychiatric hospitals. Inpatient care and treatment for the mentally ill.

Mental health treatment. Outpatient treatment for mentally ill patients; includes community mental health centres and halfway homes.

Crisis intervention. Outpatient services and counsel in acute mental health situations; includes suicide prevention and support to victims of assault and abuse.

Public health and wellness education. Public health promotion and health education; includes sanitation screening for potential health hazards, first aid training and services and family planning services.

Health treatment, primarily outpatient. Organizations that provide primarily outpatient health services e.g., health clinics and vaccination centres.

Rehabilitative medical services. Outpatient therapeutic care; includes nature cure centres, yoga clinics and physical therapy centres.

Emergency medical services. Services to persons in need of immediate care; includes ambulatory services and paramedical emergency care, shock/trauma programs, lifeline programs and ambulance services.Group 4. Social servicesChild welfare, child services and day care. Services to children, adoption services, child development centres, foster care; includes infant care centres and nurseries.

Youth services and youth welfare. Services to youth; includes delinquency prevention services, teen pregnancy prevention, drop-out prevention, youth centres and clubs and job programs for youth; includes Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA), Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA), Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and Big


Brothers / Big Sisters.

Family services. Services to families; includes family life / parent education, single parent agencies and services and family violence shelters and services.

Services for the handicapped. Services for the handicapped; includes homes, other than nursing homes, transport facilities, recreation and other specialized services.

Services for the elderly. Organisations providing geriatric care; includes in-home services, homemaker services, transport facilities, recreation, meal programs and other services geared towards senior citizens (does not include residential nursing homes).

Self-help and other personal social services. Programmes and services for self-help and personal development; includes support groups, personal counselling and credit counselling / money management services.

Disaster /emergency prevention and control. Organizations that work to prevent, predict, control and alleviate the effects of disasters, to educate or otherwise prepare individuals to cope with the effects of disasters, or to provide relief to disaster victims; includes volunteer fire departments, life boat services, etc.

Temporary shelters. Organizations providing temporary shelters to the homeless; includes traveller's aid and temporary housing.

Refugee assistance. Organizations providing food, clothing, shelter and services to refugees and immigrants.

Income support and maintenance. Organizations providing cash assistance and other forms of direct services to persons unable to maintain a livelihood.

Material assistance. Organizations providing food, clothing, transport and other forms of assistance; includes food banks and clothing distribution centres. Group 5. EnvironmentPollution abatement and control. Organizations that promote clean air, clean water, reducing and preventing noise pollution, radiation control, treatment of hazardous wastes and toxic substances, solid waste management and recycling programs.

Natural resources conservation and protection. Conservation and preservation of natural resources, including land, water, energy and plant resources for the general use and enjoyment of the public.

Environmental beautification and open spaces. Botanical gardens, arboreta, horticultural programs and landscape services; organizations promoting anti-litter campaigns; programs to preserve the parks, green spaces and open spaces in urban or rural areas; and city and highway beautification programs.

Animal protection and welfare. Animal protection and welfare services; includes animal shelters and humane societies.


Wildlife preservation and protection. Wildlife preservation and protection; includes sanctuaries and refuges.

Veterinary services. Animal hospitals and services providing care to farm and household animals and pets.Group 6. Development and housingcommunity and neighbourhood organizations. Organizations working towards improving the quality of life within communities or neighbourhoods, e.g., squatters' associations, local development organizations, poor people's cooperatives.

Economic development. Programs and services to improve economic infrastructure and capacity; includes building of infrastructure like roads; and financial services such as credit and savings associations, entrepreneurial programs, technical and managerial consulting and rural development assistance.

Social development. Organizations working towards improving the institutional infrastructure and capacity to alleviate social problems and to improve general public well being.

Housing associations. Development, construction, management, leasing, financing and rehabilitation of housing.

Housing assistance. Organizations providing housing search, legal services and related assistance.

Job training programs. Organizations providing and supporting apprenticeship programs, internships, on-the-job training and other training programs.

Vocational counselling and guidance. Vocational training and guidance, career counselling, testing and related services.

Vocational rehabilitation and sheltered workshops. Organizations that promote self-sufficiency and income generation through job training and employment.Group 7. Law, advocacy and politicsAdvocacy organizations. Organizations that protect the rights and promote the interests of specific groups of people, e.g., the physically handicapped, the elderly, children and women.

Civil rights associations. Organizations that work to protect or preserve individual civil liberties and human rights.

Ethnic associations. Organizations that promote the interests of, or provide services to, members belonging to a specific ethnic heritage.

Civic associations. Programs and services to encourage and spread civic mindedness.

Legal services. Legal services, advice and assistance in dispute resolution and court-related matters.


Crime prevention and public policy. Crime prevention to promote safety and precautionary measures among citizens.

Rehabilitation of offenders. Programs and services to reintegrate offenders; includes halfway houses, probation and parole programs, prison alternatives.

Victim support. Services, counsel and advice to victims of crime.

Consumer protection associations. Protection of consumer rights and the improvement of product control and quality.

Political parties and organizations. Activities and services to support the placing of particular candidates into political office; includes dissemination of information, public relations and political fundraising.Group 8.Philanthropic intermediaries and voluntarism promotionGrant-making foundations: Private foundations; including corporate foundations, community foundations and independent public-law foundations.

Voluntarism promotion and support: Organizations that recruit, train and place volunteers and promote volunteering.

Fund-raising organizations: Federated, collective fundraising organizations; includes lotteries.Group 9.InternationalExchange / friendship / cultural programs: Programs and services designed to encourage mutual respect and friendship internationally.

Development assistance associations: Programs and projects that promote social and economic development abroad.

International disaster and relief organizations: Organizations that collect, channel and provide aid to other countries during times of disaster or emergency.

International human rights and peace organizations: Organizations which promote and monitor human rights and peace internationallyGroup 10. ReligionCongregations: Churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, shrines, monasteries, seminaries and similar organizations promoting religious beliefs and administering religious services and rituals.

Associations of congregations: Associations and auxiliaries of religious congregations and organizations supporting and promoting religious beliefs, services and rituals.Group 11. Business and professional associations, unionsBusiness associations: Organizations that work to promote, regulate and safeguard the interests of special branches of business, e.g., manufacturers' association, farmers' association, bankers association.

Professional associations: Organizations promoting, regulating and protecting professional interests, e.g., bar association, medical association.


Labour unions: Organizations that promote, protect and regulate the rights and interests of employees.Group 12. Not stated

Aim of study Factors associated with effectivenesso Explore or test causal relationshipso Test the effects of intervention

Study of current practiceMeasuring PerformanceDefining the sectorDevelopment of the sectorViews of beneficiariesStudy of trendsTheory development

Study type ReviewsSystematic ReviewNon-systematic literature reviewScoping reviewRapid evidence assessmentObservationalCase studyCorrelational studyCross sectional SurveyLongitudinalProcess evaluationQualitativeSecondary data analysisSurvey reliability and validity developmentStreet level mappingExperimentalRandomised controlled trialQuasi-Experimental / controlled trialPropensity score matchingUnclear

Geographical focus

Department and/ or Centre, University

Arts and Humanities

Behavioural science


Business and Management

Charity

Charity and Philanthropy research centre

Consultants

Economics

Finance

Information technology

Marketing

Medical School

Social policy

Social and Political Science

University

Keywords in article

NonePractices Keywords

Methods / measurement Keywords

Population / sector keywords

Values and beliefs Keywords

Theories of behaviour Keywords

Study specific keywords

Governance / Legal keywords

Classification of study focus

What works and whySetting strategyCommunicationsGovernanceFinanceDonor behaviourIntended beneficiariesCollaborations and mergersLobbying and campaigningInvestment i.e., financial investment, such as managing an endowment)


FundraisingOperation and strategyDistribution / scope of charity and philanthropic activity

History

Funding and IncomeMajor donors, Corporates, ‘Retail donors’, Foundations/ institutional funders, Public sector fundersManaging People Staff, Volunteers, Members (as the National Trust for example has members) and leadership

Legal issues

The sector as a whole

Politics

Funder of research

Non statedGovernment

Charity

Research council

Philanthropic foundation

Corporate organisation

Educational

NGO

Social enterprise

Stated: None received

University

Intervention Donor behaviour intervention

Organisational strategy

Impacts of and on charity and philanthropy

Outcomes measured

Behavioural outcomes

Psychosocial outcomes

Organisational outcomes


Type of publication

Journal articleReportBookConference proceedingsBook chapter


Appendix 5: Authors and funders of this reportAbout the authors

Giving Evidence is a consultancy and campaign, promoting charitable giving based on sound evidence.

Through consultancy, Giving Evidence helps donors and charities in many countries to understand their impact and to raise it. Through campaigning, thought-leadership and meta-research, we show what evidence is available and what remains needed, what it says, and where the quality and infrastructure of evidence need improving.

Giving Evidence was founded by Caroline Fiennes, a former award-winning charity CEO, and author of It Ain’t What You Give. Caroline speaks and writes extensively about these issues, e.g., in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Freakonomics, and the Daily Mail. She is on boards of The Cochrane Collaboration, The Life You Can Save, and the Flemish Red Cross. She writes the How To Give It column in the Financial Times.

The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) is part of the Social Science Research Unit (SSRU), UCL Institute of Education, University College London.

The EPPI-Centre was established in 1993 to address the need for a systematic approach to the organisation and review of evidence-based work on social interventions. The work and publications of the Centre engage health and education policy makers, practitioners and service users in discussions about how researchers can make their work more relevant and how to use research findings.

Founded in 1990, the Social Science Research Unit (SSRU) is based at the UCL Institute of Education, University College London. Its mission is to engage in and otherwise promote rigorous, ethical and participative social research as well as to support evidence-informed public policy and practice across a range of domains including education, health and welfare, guided by a concern for human rights, social justice and the development of human potential.

***

The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EPPI-Centre or the funder. All errors and omissions remain those of the authors.


i https://www.cass.city.ac.uk/faculties-and-research/centres/cceii https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/tsrc/index.aspxiii https://www.acf.org.uk/policy-practice/research-publications/foundation-giving-trends-2017iv https://www.acf.org.uk/policy-practice/research-publications/foundation-giving-trends-2017v https://www.socialsystemsevidence.org/?lang=envi https://academic.microsoft.com/home

https://www.socialsystemsevidence.org/?lang=en

https://www.acf.org.uk/policy-practice/research-publications/foundation-giving-trends-2017

https://www.acf.org.uk/policy-practice/research-publications/foundation-giving-trends-2017

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/tsrc/index.aspx

https://www.cass.city.ac.uk/faculties-and-research/centres/cce

Documents

Glossary - WordPress.com · Web view2019-07-02 · A study in which a number of similar people are randomly assigned to two (or more) groups to test a specific drug, treatment or