Asking Women. Asking Men.
Is There a Difference?

Abbie J. von Schlegell, CFRE
Christine Jeffers

Is there a difference between how one solicits a woman vs. a man? Should women be engaged and involved differently from the ways in which men have traditionally interacted with an organization? Are there necessary steps that should precede a solicitation of a woman vs. an ask of a man?

Fundraisers have long asserted that, unlike men, women shy away from competing with their peers to make the largest gift, and they usually do not want their names on buildings. Compared to men, they are more likely to volunteer before giving and seek closer contact with the charities they support. Men tend to give to enhance their own standing or maintain the status quo, it is believed, while women give to promote social change or help others less fortunate. At the Chicago Foundation for Women they put it this way: “give us the money; we’ll make change.”

Creating a language of change. A wise colleague, active with a women’s foundation, once talked about the need to create a “language of change, of hope, of action and possible solutions.” She posed the question about how best to rally and inspire women—to learn more about how best to involve and engage women as donors and volunteers in support of our organizations.

Even the most recent literature on philanthropy is full of assertions that women and men contributors are different. Consider the following observations about gender differences in giving.

Women Make Smaller Gifts

Lori Stevens, director of the Women and Leadership task force at Harvard University, reflects what many fundraisers have experienced. She recently reported that a matching gift fund helped generate nearly $19 million from women donors in just 110 business days. Yet, she told a reporter, “we’ve made a lot of progress with donors in the $100,000 to $200,000 range, but we’re having a hard time getting to that next level: donors who give around $1 million.”

Fundraisers still focus on men. Some researchers have argued that small gifts by women who can easily afford to give more are rooted in insensitive fundraising practices that ignore women’s contributions, reflect male rather than female priorities, and exclude women from top leadership positions. UCLA’s focus groups, for example, found instances in which married women, even when the woman signed the couple’s check to make a gift, were not acknowledged in thank-you notes sent to their husbands.

Empirical data with large populations, while not controlling for every variable, continue to find a stubborn lag in gift size by women relative to men. A recent study by HNQ Digital examined giving patterns of more than two thousand affluent men and women with household incomes of $150,000 or more and net assets of over $500,000. Gender differences again emerged. Only 4 percent of women reported that their largest single gift was in the $10,000 to $24,000 range, while 16 percent of men made their largest gift in that amount. Similarly, 40 percent of women said their largest single gift was $1,000 or less, compared to 28 percent of men.

It takes longer to cultivate women

A fundraising officer for feminist causes observed, “Often the women I ask agonize over the amount of their contributions; they need time to think about it…or they say they want to discuss it with their husbands. The men usually commit (or refuse) on the spot(…). No man has ever told me he wants to consult his wife. I really do hope that this is changing.”

Fundraisers continue to hold that because many women lack financial skills or fear they will outlive their money–the oft-cited “bag lady syndrome”—they take longer to decide to make a sizable gift. They also are likely to require a closer relationship with the organization than men and ask questions before giving, making the building of relationships with women all the more important.

We have a lot more to learn

What conclusions about gender-based giving can we draw from the wealth of anecdotal observations and few large-scale studies that exist?

Women’s philanthropy is growing. First, women are flexing their philanthropic muscle, demanding more perks and recognition, even competing with other donors for visibility in certain situations. The resume-enhancing and business-building aspects of charity have not escaped the notice of women ascending the corporate ladder or promoting their own enterprises. Female business owners like those at Vera Bradley Designs in Fort Wayne Indiana, for example, enjoy the profile their company has earned from raising big money for cancer research.

Second, we still do not know conclusively whether women give smaller amounts to charity than men of similar means do, because there is no large scale study that controls for income levels, number of dependents, and all the variables that could skew results. Nevertheless, several studies have found a significant difference in giving levels among men and women, and fundraising executives continue to observe a giving gap.

Women prefer bequests. Women’s net worth is still less than men’s. As one researcher noted, the mean net worth of female-headed households in a national survey of consumer finances was $92,826, compared to $186,862 for male-headed households. The average net worth among never-married women’s households was $42,804, only 39 percent of the net worth of never-married male households.

Finally, fundraisers have been observing anecdotally for years, with frustration, that it takes women longer than men to make major contributions. These observations appear to be corroborated by quantitative research on planned giving. A study of such gifts to eight different capital campaigns held between
1988 and 1998 found that women’s bequests accounted for 22 percent of the total in all eight campaigns, more than three times the percentage for male bequests (7 percent).

“Bag lady” fears. The implication is that women, who live seven years longer on average than men, are concerned about having enough money to live on and therefore wait until death to make their largest gifts. In other words, the bag lady syndrome lives on. One study found that 58 percent of women say they are worried about their financial future compared with 42 percent of men. “Financial security and independence rank higher on women’s lists of financial objectives;” and an investment manager who founded a financial services company for women wrote recently, “Gifting strategies that enable older women to live out their days in comfort, after which all or most of their remaining wealth goes to charity are valid”.