DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Do People Donate? Motivation of Major Donors in Higher Education

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why Do People Donate? Motivation of Major Donors in Higher Education WHY DO PEOPLE DONATE? MOTIVATION OF MAJOR DONORS IN HIGHER EDUCATION By Karin Chao-Bushoven A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Education Committee Membership Dr. Elizabeth Miller, Committee Chair Dr. Eric Van Duzer, Committee Member Dr. Elizabeth Miller, Program Graduate Coordinator May 2020 ABSTRACT WHY DO PEOPLE DONATE? MOTIVATION OF MAJOR DONORS IN HIGHER EDUCATION Karin Chao-Bushoven Higher education has relied on private philanthropy since the establishment of the first universities in the U.S. This reliance has increased over the decades as a result of rising costs and decreased government investment. As such, it has become more critical to better understand what factors motivate philanthropists to increase their support of higher education; including direct support for teaching and research and increasing financial support for those students otherwise not able to pursue secondary education. However, much of the existing data focuses only on point-of-philanthropic-act, and neglects to examine motivational factors of long-term donors that have progressively increased their giving. The objective of this study was to better understand two key factors: 1) why a donor may increase their giving, and 2) why continue contributing to the same university over the years. This study included qualitative survey of major donors from a mid-sized, private, faith-based university. Five themes emerged from which three conclusions were derived: (1) donors’ core values and their identification with the organization’s mission; (2) trust, transparency, and the tenuous nature of the relationship between a donor and the organization; and (3) responsibilities of university leadership in philanthropy. These data ii suggest that integration of these factors in higher education donor relations may serve to better meet the increasing reliance on continued and increased private investment. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5 History and the Practice of Philanthropy ........................................................................ 5 Philanthropy in the United States ................................................................................... 7 Nonprofit organizations and their economics ............................................................. 8 Issues and controversies in nonprofit philanthropy .................................................. 10 Education Philanthropy in the United States ................................................................ 14 The need for philanthropy in higher education ......................................................... 15 The work of fundraising and institutional integrity .................................................. 17 Faces of Philanthropy and why they donate ................................................................. 21 Predictors of giving, donor motivation, and retention .............................................. 23 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 29 METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 32 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 32 Research Site ................................................................................................................. 33 Participants .................................................................................................................... 33 Instrument ..................................................................................................................... 34 Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 34 Qualitative Analysis ...................................................................................................... 37 iv RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 38 Motivated by Personal Asks ......................................................................................... 38 Sense of Blessing .......................................................................................................... 39 Joy and Legacy ............................................................................................................. 40 Religious-Connectedness Vision .................................................................................. 42 Trust and In-Depth Relationships ................................................................................. 43 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 45 Identification with Core Values .................................................................................... 45 Trust, Transparency and Tenuous Relationships .......................................................... 48 Responsibilities of the University Leadership .............................................................. 51 Implications .................................................................................................................. 53 Future Research ............................................................................................................ 55 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 56 v LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A –Interview Questions .................................................................................... 68 Appendix B – Informed Consent ...................................................................................... 70 Appendix C - Codes from respondents' answers and sample quotes ................................ 72 vi 1 INTRODUCTION “We make a living by what we get. But, we make a life by what we give.” -Winston Churchill The Oxford dictionary defines philanthropy as “the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to a good cause” (“philanthropy,” n.d.). In 2016, Americans donated over $390 billion to 1.5 million nonprofit organizations throughout the United States, the largest amount in modern day giving history (Giving USA, 2017). Non-profit entities have come to rely on these donations in support of and to advocate for better human and ecological conditions. These community-benefit organizations have used donor contributions in the human services sector, for providing basic needs such as food, clean water, and shelter, or for paving roads and rebuilding communities after mother nature’s ravages; in the education sector, for supporting inner-city after-school enrichment programs or for ensuring family literacy resources at neighborhood community centers; in the public-society benefit sector, for supporting and advocating voter education, civil liberty, and economic equality; in the environmental and animal welfare sectors, for decreasing greenhouse gas, stopping further erosion of the ozone layer, improving water and air qualities, or for eliminating deforestation and encroachment into animal habitat for human gains. Other examples of donor contributions making a difference include advancements in health and science research, arts and culture, and international affairs. These are but a few examples 2 of the overall nonprofit sector’s work in our society, with the support of philanthropic donations. With the reliance on private philanthropy, examining what motivates donors has populated the nonprofit literature (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011). Most donor motivation studies are conducted at the point of actual philanthropic acts. However, there is scant literature exploring the motivational factors of donors when they made smaller-size gifts initially and their decision-making processes to increase their donations significantly over time as consistent and committed donors to the same organization. This lack of a sufficient literature on the motivational factors of long-term donors who progressively increased their gifts from initial small amounts to major philanthropic investments has hampered fundraising efforts in American higher education. Strickland’s study of the Kalamazoo Promise (2009), a privately funded scholarship program for students in the Kalamazoo, Michigan schools, illustrates the need to gain insights into what motivates once small-annual fund donors to become major philanthropists of an educational institution. Our global-and-high-technology society’s increased need for an educated workforce, increases in tuition, and decreases in government aid to universities and colleges all support the call for more investigation of the factors related to growing philanthropic contributions over time (Latta, 2010; Mitchell, Leachman & Masterson, 2017). In preparing students
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Using Charity Performance Metrics As an Excuse Not to Give
    Using Charity Performance Metrics as an Excuse Not to Give Christine L. Exley ∗ November 28, 2018 Abstract There is an increasing pressure to give more wisely and effectively. There is, relatedly, an increasing focus on charity performance metrics. Via a series of experiments, this paper provides a caution to such a focus. While information on charity performance metrics may facilitate more effective giving, it may also facilitate the development of excuses not to give. Managers of nonprofit organizations should carefully assess this tension when determining if and how to provide information on their performance metrics. Keywords: charitable giving; prosocial behavior; altruism; excuses, self-serving biases ∗Exley: Harvard Business School, [email protected]. Acknowledgements: I gratefully acknowledge funding for this study from the NSF (SES # 1159032). Sources ranging from Ted talks to third party charity evaluators encourage individuals to give wisely.1 Charity Navigator, a third-party charity evaluator, warns against high overhead costs: \Savvy donors know that the financial health of a charity is a strong indicator of the charity's programmatic performance [...] the most efficient charities spend 75% or more of their budget on their programs and services."2 GiveWell more generally encourages caution: \The wrong donation can accomplish nothing. Charities that demonstrably change lives are the exception, not the rule."3 The Life You Can Save, an organization founded by Peter Singer, echoes this caution by noting that \`[n]ot all charities are
    [Show full text]
  • Philanthropy©
    JUNE 28, 2012 THE CHRONICLE OF PHILANTHROPY t 21 THE CHRONICLE OF PHILANTHROPYM ANAGING © The Newspaper of the Nonprofit World Governance and Regulation Volume XXIV, No. 14 • June 28, 2012 An MBA’sCharity SleuthingDonors Help WatchdogSkills Put Sniff Charities Out Financial on Waste the and Hot Abuse Seat Continued from Page 1 Bytute Suzanne of Philanthropy, Perry it has just adopted a snazzier name, CharityWatch,CHICAGO and a new logo featuring a black dog against a red background (Mr. Borochoff says the ROWING UP JEWISH in Tulsa, Okla., color signifies “Alert! Pay Attention!”). Daniel BorochoffIt is also giving learned its Web two site lessonsa face- that helpedlift so itprepare can offer him more for information the role on he G each charity it rates, for example, by has chosen to postingplay in the life—that sometimes-revealing of the charity notes world’s most persistentthat are attached watchdog. to audited financial statements. First, he says, thereBut otherwise,were not manyCharityWatch other Jewsto- there, so he gotday used operates to being much different. the same as it did when Mr. Borochoff started it two de- “I can be in acades room ago. where The group every examines single the person tax disagrees with forms,me; that’s financial okay,” statements, he says. and an- nual reports of national charities, quiz- Second, he found at a young age that asking tough questions couldUnder pay CharityWatch’s off. When he got argumentativestandards, a ingroup Sunday that school, he says, his teacherspends would less shipthan him60 percent off to the rabbi. But that wasof aits plus budget because on programs he could have a more sophisticatedis in discussion line for a bad with grade.
    [Show full text]
  • Charities Evaluation Service Jobs
    Charities Evaluation Service Jobs Raymond is datable: she rots obnoxiously and scoot her overtures. Cut and spumescent Craig often halving some unmaterialisedhammocks sniggeringly enough? or enskied contrariwise. Lindy never maze any Parsifal turfs trustily, is Gay Mormon and Set of the benefits counselor position within the charities evaluation decide which are good will work experience with covid such information To hot end Skillman program officers work closely with charities'. Application for Employment Catholic Charities. Position concerning my credit for such as how many colleges conduct asa condition allowing children. Catholic charities usa is essential functions, service work on our charity, prepare accurate information go about the grumpy cat charity. Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. This is organizational culture is an organization does not be compassionate support equity, all duties of knowledge of crowdfunding continues that is. We protect your relevant information so it is provided. It is a public beneﬕt corporation transaction varies from asking yourself from participating nonprofit company profile should realize the. Charity assessment Wikipedia. Sally Cupitt Head of charities evaluation services sally cupitt Sally manages the NCVO CES team and oversees most from our larger impact evaluations She has. Goodwill Industries International Inc Goodwill Industries. Down to assess which you may support is designed to provide training. We evaluate qualified parties, job seekers is not solicit california charitable organization, including weekends when available at san francisco! These opinions often removed from receiving, they would have worked online services is not, know all preschools, their behavior in? Our services include career counseling job skills training job referrals financial.
    [Show full text]
  • Charitable Giving Brochure (PDF)
    In these sometimes difficult economic Find Out How The Charity Will CharityWatch Beware of Sweepstakes times, the average consumer is Spend Your Hard-earned Dollars P.O. Box 578460 “Guaranteed prizes” often have a bombarded from all sides with pleas for Chicago, IL 60657 value of ten cents or less and probably charitable contributions. Unfortunately, Before you donate, find out about 773-529-2300 will not cover the cost of your postage. there are charities that are dishonest the charity’s finances and programs. www.charitywatch.org Read the small print because it will about the nature and quality of the Find out how much of your donation usually reveal that your chance of services they provide. When you goes to helping people and program GuideStar winning is one in 100,000 or greater. contribute to a charity, you should make services as opposed to fundraising 4801 Courthouse St., Suite 220 Sweepstakes generally do not provide sure that the money is used in the same and administrative expenses. Williamsburg, VA 23188 much benefit to the charity or to you, careful, efficient manner as the dollars 757-229-4631 so think carefully before you you spend on your own personal Financial information may be www.guidestar.org participate. purchases and investments. Consider obtained by calling the the following before deciding to Pennsylvania Department of State, Telephone Solicitations Professional Solicitors contribute to any particular charity: Bureau of Charitable Organizations. Because telephone solicitations are Prior to orally requesting a contribution,
    [Show full text]
  • Pennies for Charity Where Your Money Goes
    PENNIES FOR CHARITY WHERE YOUR MONEY GOES Fundraising by Professional Fundraisers NEW YORK STATE OFFICE of the ATTORNEY GENERAL CHARITIES BUREAU PenniesNovember For Charity 2017 2017 - Page 1 Pennies for Charity 2016 Giving in New York State New Yorkers give generously to charity. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance reported in 2014, the last year available, that “more than two million New York taxpayers claimed $32.9 billion in charitable giving.”1 The multitude of charitable organizations, foundations, charitable trusts, and other not-for-profits operating in New York reflects the needs that exist as well as New Yorkers’ willingness to respond to them. The range of causes is as diverse as the degree of support. New Yorkers have recognized and fulfilled needs—big and small, local and global—in education, health, the arts, housing, the environment, and a host of other areas. This support makes our communities more vibrant, sustaining, and enriching places. While individuals and communities benefit from New Yorkers’ giving, the state’s economy benefits as well. New York’s not-for-profit sector is large and diverse. As of November 2017, there were 79,073 charities registered with the Attorney General’s Charities Bureau. A recent report by John Hopkins University found that in Albany’s Capital District alone, the charitable nonprofit workforce numbers 79,210 people.2 In New York City, over 35,000 nonprofits pay $33.6 billion in payroll and employ more than 600,000 workers.3 As the chief law enforcement officer and regulator of charitable fundraising in New York, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman works diligently to monitor the not-for-profit sector and protect donors and charities from fraudulent conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Independent Sector Annual Repor T • 01
    2012 Independent Sector Annual Report • 01 To learn more about Independent Sector visit IndependentSector.org or call us at 202.467.6100. ( for IS members only ) CREDITS Photographers: Ian Pullens (2012 Annual Conference photos) Timothy Greenfield Saunders (p. 24) 2012 Independent Sector Annual Report • 02 TABLE OF CONTENTS About Independent Sector .................................................. 4 Message from our Chair and President ................................... 5 2013 Board of Directors ...................................................... 6 2013 Committee Chairs ...................................................... 7 Highlights from 2012 ........................................................... 9 GameChangers ............................................................. 9 2012 Timeline ............................................................... 10 The Policy Challenge ..................................................... 12 Leadership and Impact ................................................... 13 Means and Measures ..................................................... 14 The 2012 Annual Conference ........................................ 15 Just the Facts ............................................................... 16 The Critical Role of IS Contributors ..................................... 19 2012 Vital Voices ............................................................... 21 Cheryl Crazy Bull, American Indian College Fund.................................. 22 Dr. Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation......................
    [Show full text]
  • Development Media International
    A conversation with Development Media International, June 20, 2018 Participants • Roy Head – CEO, Development Media International (DMI) • Cathryn Wood – Director of Strategy and Development, DMI • Chelsea Tabart – Research Analyst, GiveWell Note: These notes were compiled by GiveWell and give an overview of the major points made by Mr. Head and Ms. Wood. Summary GiveWell spoke with Mr. Head and Ms. Wood of DMI to learn about DMI's progress and future plans. DMI is a GiveWell standout charity. Conversation topics included DMI's two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), its progress over the last year, its available funds and how it expects to allocate them, and how it would prioritize future funds. Child survival Burkina Faso RCT DMI has been waiting to heavily promote the results of its Burkina Faso child survival RCT until the release of two follow-up papers, which are scheduled to be published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Global Health on July 17. The RCT's findings include: • an increase in malaria diagnoses of 56% in year one (p<0.001), 37% percent in year two (p=0.003) and 35% in year three (p=0.006) • an increase in pneumonia diagnoses of 39% in year one (p<0.001), 25% percent in year two (p=0.01), and 11% in year 3 (p=0.525) • an increase in diarrhea diagnosis of 73% in year one (p<0.001), 60% in year two (p=0.01), and 107% percent in year three (p<0.001) Second paper The second paper models mortality reduction using diagnostic data from health centers.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Asymmetry, Organizational Performance, and Private Giving: Can Performance Ratings Build Trust in Nonprofits?
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University AYSPS Dissertations Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Summer 8-11-2020 Information Asymmetry, Organizational Performance, and Private Giving: Can Performance Ratings Build Trust in Nonprofits? Iurii Davydenko [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/aysps_dissertations Recommended Citation Davydenko, Iurii, "Information Asymmetry, Organizational Performance, and Private Giving: Can Performance Ratings Build Trust in Nonprofits?." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2020. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/aysps_dissertations/4 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in AYSPS Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTRACT INFORMATION ASYMMETRY, ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE, AND PRIVATE GIVING: CAN PERFORMANCE RATINGS BUILD TRUST IN NONPROFITS? By IURII DAVYDENKO August 2020 Committee Chair: Dr. Dennis R. Young Major Department: Public Management and Policy Nonprofit performance report cards, such as charity ratings, have evolved in the third sector as an attractive tool for addressing accountability concerns and improving the sector's effectiveness and efficiency. These performance monitoring services intend to increase the quality of philanthropy by helping donors allocate contributions to high-quality charities and getting organizations to improve their performance. However, we know little about how performance report cards as a policy instrument fulfill their expectations in the nonprofit sector. This research offers a comprehensive study of charity ratings that addresses three sets of questions. First, it explores the information content of charity ratings and assesses the degree of coherence among performance grades assigned by different rating services.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennies for Charity: Where Your Money Goes
    PENNIES FOR CHARITY WHERE YOUR MONEY GOES Fundraising by Professional Fundraisers NEW YORK STATE OFFICE of the ATTORNEY GENERAL CHARITIES BUREAU December 2016 Pennies For Charity 2016 - Page 1 Pennies for Charity New York Donors Make a Difference Dollars to Charities New Yorkers are generous in their giving and that generosity is increasing. In 2013, New York ranked only behind California in total charitable contributions, This year’s Pennies for Chari- with more than $17.2 billion in reported donations.1 The multitude of charitable ty report includes data from all organizations, foundations, charitable trusts, and other not-for-profits reflects both 1,143 fundraising campaigns conducted all or in part in 2015 the need that exists as well as New Yorkers’ willingness to answer it. The range of by professional fundraisers reg- causes is as striking as the degree of support. New Yorkers have recognized and istered to solicit charitable con- answered needs—big and small, local and global—in education, health, the arts, tributions in New York. All of housing, the environment and a host of other areas. The wholehearted support the figures reported were taken these initiatives receive helps make our communities more vibrant, sustaining directly from reports filed by the and enriching places. fundraisers and signed by both While individuals and communities benefit from New Yorkers’ giving, the state’s the fundraisers and the chari- ties. The campaigns raised over economy does as well. The New York Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in one billion dollars. Key findings 2012 that not-for-profit jobs make up over 18 percent of New York private sector include: employment.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Exempt Organizations Hearing Committee on Ways
    TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MAY 16, 2012 Serial No. 112–OS13 Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 80–259 WASHINGTON : 2013 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:35 Apr 29, 2013 Jkt 080259 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 I:\WAYS\OUT\80259.XXX GPO1 PsN: 80259 ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS DAVE CAMP, Michigan, Chairman WALLY HERGER, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan SAM JOHNSON, Texas CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York KEVIN BRADY, Texas FORTNEY PETE STARK, California PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington DEVIN NUNES, California JOHN LEWIS, Georgia PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky XAVIER BECERRA, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana MIKE THOMPSON, California PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon TOM PRICE, Georgia RON KIND, Wisconsin VERN BUCHANAN, Florida BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada AARON SCHOCK, Illinois JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York LYNN JENKINS, Kansas ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota KENNY MARCHANT, Texas RICK BERG, North Dakota DIANE BLACK, Tennessee TOM REED, New York JENNIFER SAFAVIAN, Staff Director and General Counsel JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT CHARLES W.
    [Show full text]
  • Charitable Organizations?
    Oklahoma’s Personal Financial Literacy Passport Standard 14. Charitable Contributions Lesson 14.1 Charitable Contributions Handout 14.1.1 — My Volunteer Profile Lesson 14.2. Checking out Charitable Groups Handout 14.2.1 — Organization Check Teacher Presentation Series 14 © 2008. Oklahoma State Department of Education. All rights reserved. 1 1.1. Identify types of charitable giving (e.g., monetary gifts, gifts-in-kind, and volunteer service). 1.2. Describe the impact of charitable giving on the individual (e.g., budget, time, personal satisfaction, tax benefits) and the community. 1.3 Identify tools to research a charitable organization’s mission/purpose, activities, and recipients (e.g., specific organizations’ Web sites, Guidestar®, and regulatory agencies). © 2008. Oklahoma State Department of Education. All rights reserved. 2 Standard 14.1 Charitable Giving Charitable Contributions © 2008. Oklahoma State Department of Education. All rights reserved. 3 Payoff Identify different types of charitable contributions. Describe examples of charitable giving in local communities and the state. Use cost/benefit analysis to analyze the impact of charitable giving on individuals and society. © 2008. Oklahoma State Department of Education. All rights reserved. 4 Cache Charitable giving Cost-benefit analysis Gifts-in-kind Tax deductions © 2008. Oklahoma State Department of Education. All rights reserved. 5 Building Interest Why do people give to charitable organizations? © 2008. Oklahoma State Department of Education. All rights reserved. 6 Charitable Organizations Identify different charitable organizations in your community. © 2008. Oklahoma State Department of Education. All rights reserved. 7 Types of Charitable Contributions Cash • Tithing • Total cash donations were $295 billion in 2006 Gifts-In-Kind • Items of value Volunteering • Your time and talents © 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • High Asset Charities | Charity Ratings | Charity Rankings | Charitywatch 5/9/17, 6:48 PM
    High Asset Charities | Charity Ratings | Charity Rankings | CharityWatch 5/9/17, 6:48 PM MENU ! SEARCH " HOME (/HOME) # DONATE $ ACCOUNT (/ACCOUNT) % (/LOGOUT) (/home) High Assets Charities Giving is a fixed pie, remaining steady at about 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) for over four decades. Because charitable dollars are limited and society's needs are not, it is vital that charities do not hoard the funds that they raise. CharityWatch believes it is reasonable for a charity to set aside less than three year's worth its annual budget for financial stability and possible future needs. When a charity's available assets in reserve exceeds three year's worth its annual budget,CharityWatch downgrades its final letter grade rating. However, we continue to show what a charity's efficiency rating was prior to being downgraded for those donors who do not wish to factor a charity's high assets into their giving decisions. A charity's Years of Available Assets reflects how many years a charity could continue to operate at current spending levels without raising any additional contributions or other revenues. Read our article Don't Judge a Not-For-Profit by its Profits (/charitywatch-articles/don-39-t-judge-a-not-for- profit-by-its-profits/100) for factors to consider when assessing a charity's financial stability. See our Criteria (/charitywatch-criteria-methodology) for a detailed explanation of CharityWatch's treatment of high assets. Grades Reduced For Charities With Large Assets Charity Fiscal Year (/charitywatch-criteria-methodology#fiscal_year) Program
    [Show full text]