Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research

Messages that encourage

bequest giving

to cancer

research Prof. Russell James Texas Tech University

1. The right message

2. To the right people

3. At the right time

Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research charities


Visualized Autobiography Family

Emotion

Life Stories

Tribute Bequests

Theory Research

Practical Results

Research

Bequest decision-making emphasizes “visualized autobiography” brain regions

Visualized Autobiography

* weighted nationally representative 2006 sample from Health and Retirement Study

Over-50 US Donors

($500+) with Charitable Plans, 9.4%

Over-50 US Donors

($500+) With No

Charitable Plans, 90.6%

Bequest Giving is Different

Charitable bequest decision-making v. giving or volunteering decision-making

Contrast

Brain Region

MNI co-ord inates

Peak p

FWE

Clust-er p FWE

(1) Beq> Give

Lingual Gyrus

-2, -78, -2

.004 .000

Precuneus 26, -66, 42

.102 .009

(2) Beq> Vol

Lingual Gyrus

2, -80, -4

.007 .000


.180 .004

Precentral Gyrus

-34, -3, 36

.397 .001

(3) Beq> (Give+ Vol)

Lingual Gyrus

0, -78, -4

.001 .000


.007 .001

Visualized autobiography visualization + 3rd person perspective on self

lingual gyrus is part of the visual system, damage can result in losing the ability to dream precuneus has been called “the mind’s eye,” used in taking a 3rd person perspective on one’s self

In a study where older adults were shown photographs from across their life, precuneus and lingual gyrus activation occurred when they were able to vividly relive events in the photo, but not where scenes were only vaguely familiar (Gilboa, et al., 2004)


In other studies, both regions simultaneously activated by mentally “traveling back in time”(Viard, et al., 2007) or recalling autobiographical personal events Denkova (2006)

“when discussing which charities they had chosen to remember, there

was a clear link with the life narratives of many respondents”

Life stories

Summarizing a series of interviews with planned

donors, Dr. Claire Routley wrote…

Research

Bequest decision-making emphasizes “visualized autobiography” brain regions


Research


Application Life Stories

Tell life stories of donors who will live beyond their death through their bequest giving

Tested different marketing messages with 11 groups, 4,560 total, 40 charities

Organization BEQ Give Amer Cancer Society 26.79 36.77 The Red Cross 25.93 41.12 ASPCA 24.18 33.77 Habitat for Humanity 24.01 34.90 Amer Heart Association 23.17 33.95 Natl Cancer Coalition 22.56 34.54 Breast Cancer Res Fnd 22.53 33.93 Natl Breast Cancer Fnd 22.43 33.48 The Amer Humane Assn 22.23 33.91 The Alzheimer's Found 21.40 32.00 Susan G. Komen Br Canc 21.39 29.22 Dana Farber Cancer Inst 21.13 29.63 American Diabetes Assn 20.84 32.54 World Wildlife Fund 20.82 29.08 Guide Dogs for the Blind 20.80 31.46 The Alzheimer's Assn 20.80 31.86 American Lung Assn 20.78 31.40 MD Anderson Cancer Cr 20.59 30.53 UNICEF 20.37 32.31 The Salvation Army 19.98 31.44

Organization BEQ Give Wildlife Conserv Soc 19.90 29.26 Goodwill Industries 19.65 34.42 Big Brothrs/Big Sisters 19.47 30.49 The United Way 18.97 28.97 Joslin Diabetes Center 18.91 29.18 Canine Compan for In 18.90 29.67 Fnd Fightng Blindness 18.77 28.37 AIDS Project LA 17.71 25.64 Prevent Blindss Amer 17.51 28.32 San Fran AIDS Found 17.39 25.49 Nat Audubon Society 17.33 24.24 YMCA 17.16 28.12 Boys and Girls Clubs 17.14 30.10 Girl Scouts 16.71 31.27 YWCA 16.21 24.42 Amer Indian College F 15.97 22.33 CARE 15.86 24.69 Boy Scouts 14.51 23.56 United Negro Coll Fnd 14.13 21.90 Ducks Unlimited 13.60 19.49

2 MD Anderson NatCancCoalition NatBreastCF Komen Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap

All 27.73 17.55 10.18 31.44 19.56 11.88 33.33 19.87 13.47 31.01 19.97 11.04

Femle 27.06 14.81 12.25 30.63 17.27 13.36 34.95 19.52 15.43 33.09 19.52 13.57

Male 28.88 22.29 6.59 32.85 23.52 9.33 30.53 20.46 10.06 27.40 20.74 6.65

50+ 20.59 11.33 9.27 27.08 9.94 17.14 26.41 10.83 15.58 28.72 13.09 15.63

1 Dana Farber ACS BreastCRF ALL Cancer Orgs Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap Give Beq Gap

All 26.73 17.08 9.65 37.70 24.47 13.23 33.69 21.10 12.59 31.66 19.94 11.72

Femle 26.06 15.34 10.72 37.66 22.85 14.81 34.83 20.43 14.41 32.04 18.53 13.51

Male 27.89 20.07 7.82 37.77 27.25 10.52 31.73 22.25 9.47 31.00 22.37 8.64

50+ 20.59 9.14 11.44 34.46 16.63 17.83 25.41 11.62 13.79 26.18 11.80 14.38

Individual Cancer Organizations

Presented formal evidence on the tendency of heirs to quickly spend inherited assets and the reasons for this rapid expenditure

Presented formal evidence on the widespread approval and acceptability of leaving a bequest gift to charity as an American social norm

Message Beq Gap Cancer 2 Cancer1 None 10.24 11.64 11.82 Spendthrift Heirs Evidence 9.42 11.16 American Social Norms Evidence 8.80 8.90

Both 8.02 10.12

Deceased donor stories (with new images or pure text)


Both 8.02 10.12 Deceased Bequest

Donor Stories 6.18 8.41 8.86

Living donor stories (otherwise identical) Ex: “School janitor Lester Holmes died in 1992” becomes “School janitor Lester Holmes signed his will today”



Donor Stories 6.18 8.41 8.86 Living Bequest Donor Stories 4.32 4.62 6.37

Both 6.00 6.43 8.44

Message All Gap MD And Dana Fa None 10.24 10.18 9.65 Spendthrift Heirs Evidence 9.42 9.44 American Social Norms Evidence 8.80 6.75


Donor Stories 6.18 8.46 5.97 Living Bequest Donor Stories 4.32 3.43 3.89

Both 6.00 5.52 6.85

Which of the four message

types worked best for which of

the 40 charities?

Living donor stories outperformed all other messages for 40 out of 40 charities tested

Which charities saw the biggest improvement from donor stories?

Largest improvement

• Wildlife Conservation Society

• World Wildlife Federation

• Canine Companions for the Blind

• Guide Dogs for the Blind

• Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America

The stories featured gifts benefiting

wildlife, dogs,

and youth

and two unrepresented categories (symphony and hospital chapel)

The bequest donor concept helped all charities, but the story cause still mattered

With new images or pure text (no significant difference)

Effect of More Stories

1st 4 Stories: Janitor, pet groomer, carpenter, symphony patron 2nd 3 Stories: fisherman, coach, physician

Message Give-Beq

Gap Gap 50+

Gap Male

Gap Female

None 10.2 14.0 7.7 11.7 Deceased 1st 4 stories 6.8 7.5 5.5 7.6 Deceased All 7 stories 6.6 7.5 5.4 7.4 Mixed Dec/Liv 7 stories 6.0 7.2 5.0 6.6 Living 1st 4 stories 4.8 5.7 3.9 5.4 Living All 7 stories 4.1 2.5 3.0 4.7

Although numerical ability declines with age, verbal knowledge does not

Park, et al (2002) Psychology and Aging, 17(2), 299-320

Research


Application Life Stories

Tell life stories of donors who will live beyond their death through their bequest giving

Research

Bequests to friends and family engage memory and emotion brain regions more than charitable bequests

Family Emotion

New experiment

• Increased realism of decision-making

• Comparing different types of bequest decision (not bequest giving v. current giving)

At the end of this session, a legally valid last will and testament will be mailed to you at no charge. To help you design your plan, we need to ask about some of your desires and preferences… (in varied order) About what percentage of your estate would you like to go to any charities?... friends who are not family members?... family members? Are there any specific personal property items you would like to leave to any charities? …friends who are not family members? …family members? Would you like to leave any specific dollar amount cash gifts (e.g., $250) to any charities? …friends who are not family members? ….family members?

Bequests to friends and family (v. charitable bequests) more heavily involve brain regions of

1. Emotion (mid/posterior cingulate cortex; insula)

2. Memory (hippocampus)

This difference was stronger for females than males.

See Maddock, Garrett & Buonocore, 2003

Research

Bequests to friends and family engage memory and emotion brain regions more than charitable bequests

Family Emotion

Tribute Bequests

Remind donors of life story connections of friends/family with the charity/cause and provide tribute bequest opportunities

Research Family Emotion

Application

Female, 63 widowed

‘The reason I selected Help the Aged...it was after my mother died...And I just thought – she’d been in a care home for probably three or four years. And I just wanted to help the elderly...I’d also support things like Cancer Research, because people I’ve known have died...An animal charity as well, I had a couple of cats.’

Bequest charity representing loved ones

“‘[In my will I have a gift to] the Cancer Research. My father died of cancer and so I have supported them ever since he died.’

Male, 89 married (Routley, 2011, p. 220-221)

Since many charitable bequest gifts appear to be in honor of a loved one, what happens when we specifically ask about making a charitable bequest honoring a friend or family member?

Bequests to friends and family (v. charitable bequests) more heavily involve brain regions of Emotion (mid/posterior cingulate cortex;

insula) and Memory (hippocampus)

Can a charitable bequest represent a loved one, and thereby connect with this

memory and emotion?

Do you have a deceased friend or deceased family member who would have appreciated your support of an International relief organization such as CARE or UNICEF?

Also tested for living friend or family member

Alzheimer’s The Alzheimer's Association, The Alzheimer's Foundation

Diabetes Joslin Diabetes Center, The American Diabetes Association

Wild Birds Preservation National Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited

Wildlife World Wildlife Fund, Wildlife Conservation Society

Minority College Fund United Negro College Fund, American Indian College Fund

Blindness related nonprofit Foundation Fighting Blindness, Prevent Blindness America

Youth-related charitable Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America, Boys and Girls Clubs of America

AIDS research and care San Francisco AIDS Foundation, AIDS Project Los Angeles

Animal welfare American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The American Humane Association

International relief UNICEF, Care

Cancer research American Cancer Society, National Cancer Coalition, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Dana Farber Cancer Institute

Guide dogs Guide Dogs for the Blind, Canine Companions for Independence

Breast cancer research Breast Cancer Research Foundation, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation

If so, please state your relationship to them and write at least 25 words describing their interest in or connection with this cause.

If you signed a will in the next 3 months, what is the likelihood you might leave a BEQUEST gift honoring a living [deceased] friend or family member to _____

Testing the tribute bequest

Tribute charitable bequest decisions (with family connections) create more neural

activation (consistent with processing memory and emotion) than standard charitable

bequest decisions tribute bequest-fix>

initial bequest-fix initial bequest-fix> tribute bequest-fix

Change in charitable bequest intention for those with family/friend connection

Total Age 50+ Male Female Memorial reminder +14.0 +14.0 +13.5 +14.0 Living reminder +9.2 +9.3 +7.7 +9.9

Connection reminder + tribute bequest offer

increases interest

Average share with family/friend connections to each cause

Total Age 50+ Male Female Memorial reminder 22.1% 27.1% 19.5% 23.6% Living reminder 34.2% 36.1% 30.4% 36.6%

Change in charitable bequest intention for those with family/friend connection

Total Age 50+ Male Female Memorial reminder

+11.7 +12.2 +11.0 +12.1

Memorial reminder (after other messages)

+15.0 +14.0 +15.3 +14.8

Living reminder

+9.4 +11.3 +6.4 +10.0

Living reminder (after other messages)

+9.2 +9.1 +7.9 +9.9

Connection reminder + tribute bequest offer can be “stacked” with other bequest messages

Giving – Tribute Bequest

Total Age 50+ Male Female

Memorial reminder (after living/ deceased stories)

-4.2 -1.7 -6.5 -3.1

Living reminder (after living/ deceased stories)

-3.3 -2.3 -2.4 -3.7

Donor stories + tribute reminder eliminates giving-bequest intention gap for those with friend/family connections

DONOR STORY

TRIBUTE REMINDER

DONOR STORY

DONOR STORY

Do tribute bequests work better/worse

for different types of organizations?

Memorial Living Diabetes 16.9 Wild birds 12.8 Alzheimer’s 16.0 Diabetes 12.7 AIDS 14.1 AIDS 11.4 Minority college fund 14.0 Alzheimer’s 11.2

Cancer 12.6 Int’l relief 10.4 Breast canc. 11.7 Blindness 10.3 Wild birds 11.1 Pets 9.5 Int’l relief 10.9 Cancer 9.4 Pets 10.6 Guide dogs 9.3 Blindness 10.2 Breast canc. 8.6

Guide dogs 9.2 Minority college fund 7.4

Youth 7.7 Wildlife 6.1 Wildlife 7.1 Youth 5.2

Impact Change in charitable bequest intention for

those with family/friend connection

Frequency Likelihood of reporting a family or friend

connection with the cause

Memorial Living Cancer 46% Pets 56% Breast canc. 39% Breast canc. 54% Alzheimer’s 29% Cancer 49% Diabetes 28% Wildlife 41% Pets 28% Diabetes 38% Wildlife 18% Youth 37% Guide dogs 15% Alzheimer’s 30% Youth 15% Guide dogs 23% Int’l relief 14% Wild birds 18%

AIDS 11% Minority college fund 18%

Wild birds 10% AIDS 17% Blindness 9% Int’l relief 16% Minority college fund 8% Blindness 15%

Impact and frequency vary with cause

Do memorial or tribute bequests work better or worse for different family members?

Tribute bequests are more attractive for ascendants, less for descendants or friends

Family and friend words associated with interest in a tribute bequest (ranked by strength of correlation)

Positive Non-significant Negative grandmother +7.5 dad girl -12.8 family +3.5 children boy -13.7 mother +2.4 uncle kids -8.4 aunt +2.6 sister girls -12.1 grandfather +2.7 mom friends -3.5 husband +3.6 wife boys -11.6

cousin brother -6.4 parents daughter -6.1 son child -5.8 father friend -1.4

Simple language and starting with honor

Interested Now

23%

16%

13%

Will Never Be

Interested

17%

21%

21%

2014 Survey, 1,961 Respondents, Groups B/A/H

Honor a friend or family member by making a memorial gift to charity in

my last will & testament

Make a bequest gift to charity in my last will & testament in honor of a

friend or family member who appreciated the charity's work

Make a bequest gift to charity in my last will & testament in honor of a friend or family member who was

passionate about the charity's work

Simple implementations Samples courtesy of Phyllis

Freedman, President of SmartGiving and

“The Planned Giving Blogger”

to “honor a friend or family member by making a memorial gift to charity in my last will & testament”

In a 2014 survey,

1 in 4 increased their intention to leave a charitable bequest when given the option

Tribute Bequests

Remind donors of life story connections of friends/family with the charity/cause and provide tribute bequest opportunities

Research Family Emotion

Application




Predicting if any charitable estate gift occurs at death

Different ways to compare the predictive power of each item

Best lone item If you could only know ONE FACT about a person, what is the value of EACH FACT BY ITSELF?

Best group of items If you could only know FIVE FACTS about a person, what are the FIVE MOST IMPORTANT facts to know?

Best additional item

If you knew ALL OF THE OTHER statistics about a person, what is the ADDED VALUE of knowing this ONE EXTRA fact?

lone items Rank Variable

Likelihood changes by __ percentage points Comparing

1 3 % years giving $500+ 8.69% 8.74% 100% v. 0% 2 1 % years reporting funded trust 13.99% 16.69% 100% v. 0% 3 5 Highest $ year of giving 0.15% 0.16% + $1000 4 6 Average $ giving per year 0.29% 0.21% + $1000 5 8 Gave $500+ in last report 6.41% 6.29% Yes v. No 6 2 $ of giving in last report 0.24% 0.28% + $1000 7 4 Funded trust in last report 9.37% 10.80% Yes v. No 8 7 No offspring exists 8.21% 10.42% Yes v. No 9 11 % of years reporting a will 5.22% 5.41% 100% v. 0%

10 16 Last reported wealth 0.14% 0.12% doubles 11 9 Living children at last report -7.36% -9.33% Yes v. No 12 10 Average reported wealth 0.20% 0.24% doubles 13 12 Highest reported wealth 0.19% 0.22% doubles 14 14 Will in last report 3.97% 4.21% Yes v. No 15 20 Not a high school graduate -3.60% -3.68% v. all other levels 16 13 % years volunteering 100+ hrs 6.21% 7.01% 100% v. 0% 17 15 Grandchildren at last report -3.77% -5.04% Yes v. No

• Ranked by R2 where p<.05 • All decedents (10,233) • Those ever diagnosed with cancer (3,498)

Reported wills are often unused

16%

38% 10%

19%

11%

6%

Distributed estates where decedent reported having a written and witnessed will (n=6,063)

No will found

Will probated

Unprobated will: nothingmuch of value

Unprobated will: estateotherwise distributed

Unprobated will: trustdistributed

Unprobated will: other

Funded trusts more likely to work

75%

5%

10%

4% 2% 4%

Distributed estates where decedent reported having a funded trust (n=913)

Funded trust exists

No documents

Will probated

Unprobated will:Otherwise divided

Will - Nothing much ofvalue

Will - Unknown

lone items Rank Variable


18 25 Trend in reported wealth 3.01% 2.55% doubles v. no Δ 19 17 Graduate education 5.28% 7.40% v. all other levels 20 22 Number of children -0.53% -0.64% + 1 child 21 23 Race: White 3.22% 4.02% v. other race 22 21 Bachelor's degree 5.22% 6.39% v. all other levels 23 19 100+ vol. hours at last report 3.53% 5.05% Yes v. No 24 27 Some (< 4 years) college 3.15% 2.70% v. all other levels 25 31 Hispanic ethnicity -4.33% -3.90% v. other race 26 34 Race: Black -2.79% -3.71% v. other race 27 n/s Female 1.95% n/s v. male 28 24 Average volunteer hrs per year 0.91% 1.12% +100 hours 29 28 Married -1.85% -1.80% v. not married 30 26 % of years as homeowner 1.73% 2.35% 100% v. 0% 31 30 Highest vol. hours reported 0.34% 0.36% +100 hours 32 33 Last volunteer hours reported 0.44% 0.58% +100 hours 33 n/s Homeowner at last report 0.95% n/s v. not own 34 18 Age at death 0.17% 1.78% +10 years


Less important lone items Rank Variable


35 n/s Lowest reported wealth -0.03% n/s doubles n/s 29 High school education n/s -1.79% v. all other levels n/s 32 Trend in charitable $ reported n/s 1.62% doubles v. no Δ n/s n/s Death was expected n/s n/s v. unexpected

n/s n/s Days between start of last illness and death n/s n/s + 1 more date

n/s n/s Cause of death was cancer n/s n/s v. other cause

n/s n/s Trend in volunteer hrs. reported n/s n/s

n/s Ever diagnosed with cancer n/s v. not

Lone items Why not just use these numbers for our modeling? Because you can’t stack them.

For example, once you know the average giving level and highest giving level, the lowest giving level isn’t that important anymore. If it was the only number you knew – by itself – it is useful. But, once you know the others, its not that useful.

Best groups of items Because we can’t stack the first results, we next ask:

If we could only know 2 facts, what would be included in the best predictive model? If we could only know 3 facts … If we could only know 4 facts … If we could only know 5 facts … If we could only know 6 facts … If we could only know 7 facts … If we could only know 8 facts … If we could only know 9 facts … If we could only know 10 facts …

Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Base rate 2.36% 1.47% 1.49% 1.11% -2.73% -4.70% -3.20% -3.12% -2.89% -3.03%

% years giving 8.69% 8.85% 8.66% 6.40% 6.73% 5.96% 6.22% 6.16% 6.29% 5.68%

No offspring 8.66% 8.55% 8.60% 8.36% 9.56% 8.05% 8.00% 7.92% 7.95%

Highest giving $k 0.12% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07%

% years reporting trust 10.19% 10.24% 8.43% 9.45% 9.36% 9.39% 9.46%

Female 2.45% 2.65% 2.00% 1.96% 1.90% 1.91%

Last wealth (doubles) 0.07% 0.08% 0.08% 0.06% 0.06%

Married -2.18% -2.23% -2.30% -2.26%

Last giving $k 0.10% 0.10% 0.10%

Wealth trend 1.76% 1.83%

% years volunteering 2.41%

Best 1 to 10-Item Models

Other items valuable (p<.01) in larger models: Education level and Age at death

1 Item

2 Item

3 Item

4 Item

5 Item

6 Item

7 Item

8 Item

9 Item

10 Item

base rate 4.03% 3.84% 2.96% 1.15% 0.79% 0.80% -7.90% -8.08% -8.22% -8.43%

% years trust 15.08% 14.85% 14.85% 12.62% 12.86% 13.01% 12.33% 11.96% 11.67% 11.56%

$k last giving 0.25% 0.24% 0.22% 0.22% 0.42% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41%

No offspring 10.20% 10.32% 10.32% 10.26% 9.98% 9.94% 9.91% 9.97%

% years giving 6.03% 5.21% 5.21% 5.16% 4.79% 4.54% 4.43%

Volunteered in last report 3.62% 3.64% 3.94% 3.72% 3.64% 3.64%

Average giving $k -0.21% -0.20% -0.20% -0.21% -0.20%

Age at death 1.12% 1.14% 1.13% 1.11%

Graduate education 3.42% 3.84% 3.86%

Bachelor's degree 3.78% 3.83%

Wealth trend 1.94%

Best 1 to 10-Item with cancer diagnosis

Other items valuable (p<.01) in larger models: None

Final test… Best additional item if all other facts known

If you knew ALL OF THE OTHER facts about a person, which facts still have significant ADDED VALUE to predict the charitable estate transfers after death? Note: This is also useful to examine the issue of causation (i.e., is the fact relevant only because it is associated with something else like wealth or family structure?)

% years reporting funded trust 7.84% 12.30% 100% v. 0% Female 1.94% n/s v. male Married -1.99% n/s v. not Highest $ year of giving 0.08% n/s + $1000 No offspring exists 10.02% 13.23% Yes v. No % years giving $500+ 4.03% 5.32% 100% v. 0% $ of giving in last report 0.10% 0.41% + $1000 Bachelor's degree 2.91% 4.70% v. HS graduate Average volunteer hrs per year 1.61% n/s +100 hours Trend in reported wealth 1.80% n/s doubles v. no change Average reported wealth 0.54% n/s doubles Highest volunteer hours reported -0.56% n/s +100 hours Some (< 4 years) college 1.95% n/s v. HS graduate Graduate education 2.78% 4.56% v. HS graduate Highest reported wealth -0.44% n/s doubles Last volunteer hours reported -0.88% n/s +100 hours

Items still significant (p<.01) controlling for all other items. Red examines only those previously diagnosed with cancer.

Predicting the dollars of charitable estate gifts

Note: Dollar-based analyses are always dominated by a few major donors, so the results may be less reliable than the “yes” v. “no” question.

Different ways to compare the predictive power of each item

Best lone item If you could only know ONE FACT about a person, what is the value of EACH FACT BY ITSELF?

Best group of items If you could only know FIVE FACTS about a person, what are the FIVE MOST IMPORTANT facts to know?

Best additional item

If you knew ALL OF THE OTHER statistics about a person, what is the ADDED VALUE of knowing this ONE EXTRA fact?

lone items Rank Variable $ effects Comparing

1 1 Average $ giving per year $1,415 $1,188 + $1000 2 3 $ of giving in last report $1,089 $1,058 + $1000 3 2 Highest $ year of giving $562 $739 + $1000 4 4 Average reported wealth $15 $12 + $1000 5 6 Last reported wealth $7 $7 + $1000 6 5 Highest reported wealth $4 $5 + $1000 7 7 % years reporting funded

trust $19,853 $23,845 100% v. 0%

8 11 Funded trust in last report

$12,441 $10,020 Yes v. No

9 10 Gave $500+ in last report $7,946 $7,524 Yes v. No 10 9 % years giving $500+ $8,718 $9,394 100% v. 0% 11 15 No offspring exists $10,233 $7,815 Yes v. No 12 16 Living children at last

report -$9,346 -$7,112 Yes v. No


lone items Rank Variable $ effects Comparing 13 8 Bachelor's degree $10,678 $16,733 v. all other

levels 14 12 % of years reporting a

will $5,047 $5,838 100% v. 0%

15 14 Will in last report $4,137 $4,832 Yes v. No 16 22 Grandchildren at last

report -$4,870 n/s Yes v. No

17 21 Number of children -$678 n/s + 1 child 18 13 Graduate education $6,796 $9,268 v. all other

levels 19 17 Not a high school

graduate -$3,119 -$3,798 v. all other

levels 20 20 Race: White $3,365 n/s v. other race


Best groups of items Because we can’t stack the first results, we next ask:

If we could only know 2 facts, what would be included in the best predictive model? If we could only know 3 facts … If we could only know 4 facts … If we could only know 5 facts … If we could only know 6 facts … If we could only know 7 facts … If we could only know 8 facts … If we could only know 9 facts … If we could only know 10 facts …

Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 base rate 1,499 703 -242 -199 -826 -561 -836 -636 -567 346

Average $k giving 1,415 1,344 1,340 1,024 1,004 1,078 1,056 1,044 1,244 1,250 Last reported wealth $k 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 5 No offspring exists 9,774 9,722 9,815 9,807 9,917 9,868 9,844 9,325 $k of giving in last report 336 341 317 301 293 286 286 % years reporting funded trust 9,960 11,125 10,049 10,014 10,096 10,195 Highest reported wealth $k -2 -4 -5 -5 -5 Average reported wealth $k 7 10 10 10 Lowest reported wealth $k -13 -13 -12 Highest $k year of giving -113 -114 Married -2,409

Best 1 to 10-Item Models

Other items valuable (p<.01) in larger models: Education level and Any Gift at Last Report

Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 base rate 1829 464 -107 -184 158 -488 -882 -687 -1016 -712

Average $k giving 1,189 1,159 1,113 1,613 1,653 1,658 1,635 1,842 1,866 1,870 % yrs with funded trust 15,793 13,326 12,947 14,463 14,266 13,821 14,156 13,353 13,811 Last wealth $k 3 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 $k of giving in last report -586 -563 -571 -551 -467 -462 -488 Highest reported wealth $k -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 No offspring exists 7,456 7,401 7,357 7,284 7,352 College degree (highest) 7,922 7,909 8,555 9,146 Highest $k year of giving -217 -239 -226 Graduate education 6,520 7,080 Lowest reported wealth $k -12 Note: The negative association with $ of giving in the last report appears odd. This suggests that once we know the average (higher is better), we are looking for those whose giving drops in the last survey before death. If we look at those with a cancer diagnosis who DID NOT die from cancer, or those who were never diagnosed with cancer, the relationship with last giving reverses and is strongly positive. This relationship is entirely driven by those who DIED OF CANCER. In that case, the drop in giving before death appears normal for estate donors. Remember also that a few large donors will strongly influence the dollar model, but not the earlier yes/no model. Other items valuable (p<.01) in larger models: none

Best 1 to 10-Item with cancer diagnosis

Final test… Best additional item if all other facts known

If you knew ALL OF THE OTHER facts about a person, which facts still have significant ADDED VALUE to predict the charitable estate transfers after death? Note: This is also useful to examine the issue of causation (i.e., is the fact relevant only because it is associated with something else like wealth or family structure?)

Average $k giving per year $1,264 $1,898 +$1,000 % years reporting funded trust $12,082 $13,233 100% v. 0%

Last reported wealth $k $5 $7 +$1,000 Average reported wealth $k $9 n/s +$1,000

Highest reported wealth $k -$5 -$4 +$1,000

Lowest reported wealth $k -$14 -$14 +$1,000 $k of giving in last report $277 -$522 +$1,000

Married -$3,275 n/s v. Not Highest $k year of giving -$119 -$228 +$1,000 College degree (highest) $4,746 $8,742 v. All other levels Graduate education n/s $6,692 v. All other levels

Items still significant (p<.01) controlling for all other items. Red examines only those previously diagnosed with cancer.




Factors predicting when charitable plans are

ADDED

1. Approaching death (final pre-death survey)

2. Becoming a widow/widower

3. Diagnosed with cancer

4. Decline in self-reported health

5. Divorce 6. Diagnosed with

heart problems 7. Diagnosed with

a stroke 8. First grandchild 9. Increasing

assets 10. Increasing

charitable giving

Factors predicting when charitable plans are

DROPPED

1. Decline in self-reported health

2. Approaching death (final pre-death survey)

3. Becoming a widow/widower

4. Divorce

5. Diagnosed with cancer

6. Diagnosed with heart problems

7. Diagnosed with a stroke

8. First grandchild

9. First child

10. Exiting homeownership

1. Death feels near

• Final pre-death survey • Decline in self-reported health • Diagnosis with cancer • Diagnosis with heart disease • Diagnosis with stroke • Becoming a widow or widower

2. Family structure changes

• Divorce • First child • First grandchild • Becoming a widow or widower

Plans destabilize when

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

8-10 yearspremortem

6-8 yearspre-mortem

4-6 yearspre-mortem

2-4 yearspre-mortem

0-2 yearspre-mortem

Timing of Lifetime Surveys

Lifetime giving and volunteering by estate

donors

Giving ($500+)

Volunteering

Bequest givers

may not be your donors,

but many used to

be

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95+

Cumulative percentage of charitable bequest dollars by donor age at death

Over 80% of charitable bequest dollars come from decedents aged 80+

Half of all charitable bequest dollars came from decedents this age and older…

Current U.S. study:

Age 89

New Australian study (5% sample of national

probate files):

Age 90

Remember that most realized charitable bequests are added within 5 years of death

Age at Will Signing (by share of total charitable bequest $ transferred)

76%

11%

13% 80s+

70s

pre-70

Australian data from: Baker, Christopher (October, 2013) Encouraging Charitable Bequests by Australians . Asia-Pacific Centre for Social Investment & Philanthropy - Swinburne University

Most realized charitable plans (shown in red) added within 5 years of death

Total Number Total $

Although most charitable plans were added within 5 years of death, ONE longer-term plan was worth FOUR made in the last two years.

A 5% national sample of 2012 probate records in Australia showed an estimated • 31% of charitable wills were signed

within 2 years of death • 60% were signed within 5 years of

death

Baker, Christopher (October, 2013) Encouraging Charitable Bequests by Australians . Asia-Pacific Centre for Social Investment & Philanthropy - Swinburne University

Most still report charitable plans 10 years later

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1993/4 to2004

1995/6 to2006

1998 to2008

2000 to2010

2002 to2012

10-Year Retention of Charitable Estate Component

age 70+

age 50-69

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Charitable Plan Loss Trajectory Among those still alive and answering the question who reported having a charitable

component in BOTH 1998 & 2000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14G

ive

-Be

qu

est

Gap

All

50+

Older adults are initially more resistant to

bequest giving but are more responsive to

bequest giving marketing

{ { { { { { {

{

}

Organizational age helps (perceived stability and donor age)

% of gift income from bequests and founding date of UK cancer charities among Top 100 UK fundraisers (Pharoah, 2010)

Data from Pharoah (2010)

Cancer Research UK 42.6% (1902) Macmillan Cancer Support 37.9% (1911) Marie Curie Cancer 31.0% (1948) CLIC Sargent Cancer Care for Children 18.6% (1968)

Breast Cancer Care 2.1% (1972) Breakthrough Breast Cancer 1.0% (1991) Walk the Walk Worldwide 0.0% (1998)

Many of our customers like to leave money to

charity in their will. Are there any causes you’re

passionate about?

Would you like to leave any money to charity in your will?

No reference to charity

Charitable bequest decisions are often unstable and easily influenced

Charitable plans among

1,000 testators


1,000 testators


1,000 testators

The score doesn’t count until the clock runs out

You can’t sit out the fourth quarter and expect to win




Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research charities

Date post:	14-Jul-2015
Category:	Health & Medicine
Upload:	russell-james
View:	301 times
Download:	0 times

Messages that encourage bequest giving to cancer research

Health & Medicine