The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported on the "aha" moment at the recent annual meeting of the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. Fundraisers for higher education were told that the "golden age of philanthropy" is over, and they will need to shift their attention from mega-gifts by the ultra wealthy to donations from the middle and lower end of the gift pyramid.

Experts, according to the Chronicle, told attendees that:

"...recent campaigns have depended on the top 1 percent of donors (those giving gifts of $1-million or more) for 70 percent of dollars raised. That top section now could shrink to represent 50 percent of money raised. At the same time, the middle of the pyramid (donors who give between $100,000 and $999,999) could expand. Instead of representing 4 percent of donors giving 25 percent of the money raised, that group could grow to 9 percent of donors who contribute 40 percent of a campaign total.

The bottom part of the pyramid, which represents 5 percent of dollars, contributed by 95 percent of donors, could shift to 10 percent of dollars given by 90 percent of donors."

The fundraisers learned that they would need to pay a lot more attention to the middle range of donors, meaning more gift officers to work with that group and more time getting to know those prospects.

Maybe this will be a sea change for institutions that have benefited from the largess of "philanthrocapitalists" during the go-go years of the economy, but won't come as much of a surprise for most nonprofits, who have labored in these particular fields for a long time.

In any case, if you are a mid-size donor (and we're not referring to your waist size here), expect to get a lot more attention from your alma mater.

Colleges Will See a Decline in Megagifts, Experts Predict

The Financial Times summarizes a new report from Barclays Wealth called Tomorrow's Philanthropist. Researchers for Barclays Wealth found that some philanthropists scrimp on their lifestyles so they can keep shoring up their charitable causes.

Of the 500 British and American philanthropists surveyed for the report, three-quarters have not decreased their contributions to charity, despite the global recession. In fact one in four has increased the amount of money donated to charitable causes recently.

The FT article says:

"Depleted investment portfolios, lower property prices and companies’ valuations have not pushed these individuals into scrimping on giving. Indeed, they would rather do away with new luxury cars, hiring staff, eating out and holidays than stop donating to favoured philanthropic causes, Barclays says. Only education fees remain untouchable... Barclays calls this breed 'the go-givers'. About three-quarters of those questioned who were under 45 believed individuals had to take on more responsibility for the needy as governments’ debts rise."

Many philanthropists are also increasingly using the services of organizations such as the Institute of Philanthropy and New Philanthropy Capital, consulting firms that evaluate the performance of charities and then recommend which ones to "invest in" to their clients. These services are pricey, but donors who have a lot of money to give consider them as necessary as their stock market investment advisers. It is indicative of the way the new philanthropy approaches giving money -- as an investment.

Related:

• Manage Donations to Charity With These Six Investment Strategies

• Scott Stadium, in The Changing Face of Volunteerism at idealist.org, provides a roundup of tech tools that allow micro-volunteering, micro-fundraising, and community organizing. Volunteer managers listen up!

• I love a good controversy and we have one, beginning with Nicholas D. Kristof's column in the NYTimes, in which Kristof says, "...humanitarians are abjectly ineffective at selling their causes. Any brand of toothpaste is peddled with far more sophistication than the life-saving work of aid groups."

  Allison Fine, of A. Fine Blog, came back with Why Humanitarian Aid is NOT Crest Toothpaste, saying, "The problem isn’t that we don’t sell causes like toothpaste, the problem is that we too often DO sell them like toothpaste."

• Rod Schwartz, who holds forth at the SocialEdge blog, examines the good and the bad of charismatic leaders in The Charismatic Entrepreneur -- a Blessing or a Curse? Schwartz points out that in some organizations, "So impassioned is the leader by the mission, so violently consumed by this personal passion, they stifle innovation, debate, staff development and, inevitably, the enterprise’s future."

Related:

• Micro-Volunteering via Mobile Phones
• Characteristics of Social Entrepreneurs

While The Philanthropist, NBC's new TV program featuring a wealthy do-gooder who wanders the globe helping people out, shows one extreme of philanthropy, the other extreme is illustrated by the increasing number of micro-charity portals that allow people of modest means to contribute to causes around the globe.

Two more just came to my attention, both launched in Seattle by Microsoft veterans:

• SeeYourImpact.org

  Founded by philanthropist Scott Oki, a retired Microsoft executive, SeeYourImpact is aimed at young people with limited budgets. The site says it will work with organizations around the world, allowing donors to find a cause, donate online, and see the impact their donations have via photos and videos on their mobile phones. That is a terrific concept, but the site is simply a "concept preview" at this point. We look forward to its official launch later this year.

• Jolkona.org

  Another micro-philanthropy effort that targets the younger generation, this site allows donors to choose from projects around the world for as little as $5. Founders Adnan Mahmud (also a Microsoft executive) and his wife, Nadia Khawaja, take an entrepreneurial, low overhead with big impact approach to philanthropy.

Unfortunately, SeeYourImpact is still in beta mode, and there isn't a lot of information at the site. Jolkona.org is well organized and full of information. A press release expands on the Jolkona Foundation's goals. There is a very nice article about the organization on SocialEarth; and a post by Phil Cubeta at Gift Hub. The Seattle Times has an excellent article about both of these sites, since they are home-grown and in a community that values such social entrepreneurism and social activism.

My question, though, is do we need more micro-charity sites? Don't newer sites overlap or even duplicate other sites such as Kiva, DoSomething, or Change.org? Are the subtle differences among all these sites enough? Does the proliferation of such sites carve micro-charity into even tinier chunks, diluting its effect?

On the other hand, perhaps we need all of these organizations looking for people and organizations around the globe that we would likely never hear of otherwise, much less support. Maybe, just as we have lots of commercial brands vying for our attention, the charitable world can handle lots of possibilities for our charitable dollars.

What do you think?

Related:

• Websites Where You Can Make a Difference