Adil Najam examines the philanthropic attitudes and preferences of expatriate Pakistanis in America.
The survey questionnaire directly tackled the question of motivation and asked respondents how important each of a set of motivations was in making their philanthropic decisions. They were asked to rate a set of given statements on a five-point scale ranging from ‘very high importance’ to ‘no importance’.
The results from this analysis highlight a number of interesting findings … The single most important philanthropic impulse on the generosity of Pakistanis in America is a desire to directly help individuals in need, including friends and extended family in their kinship networks. Nearly 80 per cent of our respondents rated the desire to directly help individuals in need as being of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance for them and only four per cent considered this to be of ‘low’ or ‘no’ importance. In fact, the second highest ranked category is directly related and only amplifies this result, with nearly 70 per cent of our respondents ranking the ability to help their kinship networks (friends and extended family) as being of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance to them. The only surprise here is that, contrary to what one might have assumed, there is a notable minority (over 10 per cent) that considers assistance to kinship networks as being of ‘low’ or ‘no importance’.
In terms of the role of faith as a motivator of giving, it is not a surprise (given what we have already found from other parts of the survey) that over 60 per cent of our respondents believe that their religious obligation to give is a major motivation of their philanthropy. What is striking and noteworthy, however, is that one in five of all respondents believes that the religious duty to give is of ‘low’ or ‘no’ importance to their philanthropic decisions. This should be contextualised with the response to a different statement on this question which referred to causes related to one’s religious identity. Interestingly, about as many respondents (a little more than a third each) consider giving to religious causes to be of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance as those who consider it to be of ‘no’ or ‘low’ importance.
Indeed, community motivations seem to be as strong a pull as faith-based motivations. Nearly as many people listed the desire to return something to the community they grew up in as being of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance to them as those who rated the religious duty to give as an important motivator. More tellingly, the number of respondents who felt that giving back to the community they grew up in is of ‘no’ or ‘low’ importance is notably lower than those who rank the religious duty to give as a low motivation. It becomes even more clear that community is a strong motivator of philanthropy by Pakistanis in America as one looks at some of the other results from this question. It is not just that our respondents place value on giving back to the community they grew up in, but more than half (54 per cent) also consider giving to the community they now live in as being of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance. In defining the notion of community more broadly, the same number of respondents (54 per cent) consider philanthropy directed at issues important to Pakistan’s development to be important to them.
Other possible motivations fail to garner clear enthusiasm from our respondents. Giving to important global issues on the one hand, and giving to religious causes on the other, both show very mixed results with about as many respondents rating these as important motivations as those who did not. What is striking, however, is the very obvious lack of enthusiasm for giving to educational institutions. Nearly half of our respondents felt that returning something to the educational institution they had attended was of ‘no’ or ‘low’ importance to them; under 30 per cent felt that it was of ‘high’ or ‘very high importance’.
This is rather surprising given that one of the most important assets that Pakistani-American professionals (for example, doctors, engineers, etc.) tend to bring with them from Pakistan when they come to the US is their education and training. Arguably, this may also be a function of the fact that (according to many of our focus group participants) most Pakistanis in America are never asked to contribute by the educational institutions they attended in Pakistan. Except for a handful of institutions such as the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) or the Aga Khan University (AKU), a culture of giving to educational institutions — or even considering these as potential recipients of one’s philanthropy — has not really developed amongst the Pakistani diaspora in America. Indeed, more of our focus group participants reported giving back something to the universities they attended in the US than to the institutions they went to in Pakistan.
What makes people give: If motivations are the things that pull people towards giving by resonating with the reasons they consider worthy of their philanthropic support, there are also a set of more practical considerations — such as simply how easy or difficult it is to give to a particular cause or organisation — that push people to convert their intention to give into an actual contribution. We will now turn our attention to these practical motors of philanthropy. What are the types of things that can turn a person’s well-meaning desire to be philanthropic into an actual act of philanthropy?
The obvious place to begin exploring this question is to look at our respondents’ attitudes to different methods of fund-raising. The survey questionnaire presented our respondents with a list of fund-raising methods and asked them to rate the effectiveness of each method on a five-point scale ranging from ‘very highly effective’ to ‘not effective’. The critical lesson to be drawn from the analysis of the responses received is clear even from a cursory glance at the accompanying figure. Nothing is as effective in raising funds for an organisation or cause as personal testimonials and appeals by friends and family in the US or in Pakistan. Again, we seem to be confirming the adage that ‘people do not give to organisations, people give to people’. This result is not surprising, but the intensity with which this view is held is compelling. It is not only that about 65 per cent of our respondents consider fund-raising appeals by friends and family to be ‘highly’ or ‘very highly’ effective, it is also that if we include those who rated these as ‘effective’ the total number jumps up to over 85 per cent.
To an appreciable extent, visits by representatives of the organisations allow people to get a more detailed picture of what the organisation is doing and to develop a sense of comfort with the organisation that is seeking their support. However, there is lingering scepticism about such visits which were described by one of our focus group participants as “marketing and sales routines.” Hence, we see that although 70 per cent of respondents do consider these effective to some degree, only 32 per cent feel that they are ‘highly’ or ‘very highly’ effective. The methods that are probably the most commonly used — cultural events, formal fund-raiser events, and celebrity endorsements — seem to solicit only lukewarm approval. In each of these cases, around 20 per cent of our respondents do consider these to be ‘highly’ or ‘very highly’ effective, but as many as 40 to 50 per cent feel they are either ‘not effective’ or only ‘slightly effective’.
Interestingly, many of the methods that are most popular for fund-raising by US organisations — websites, membership dues, mass mailing, media advertising, phone requests and pledges, and email solicitations — receive little enthusiasm from Pakistani Americans. Membership dues, mass mailings, media advertising, and phone pledge drives are all immensely popular and powerful fund-raising tools for US charitable organisations. Yet, the percentage of our respondents who considered any of these to be ‘highly’ or ‘very highly’ effective was in the single digits. In each case, between 60 per cent (for membership dues) to 75 per cent (for phone pledge drives) of our respondents found these to be either not effective at all or only ‘slightly’ effective.
Nothing is as effective in raising funds for an organisation or cause as personal testimonials and appeals by friends and family in the US or in Pakistan. Again, we seem to be confirming the adage that ‘people do not give to organisations, people give to people’
Email solicitations received the most negative reaction with over 80 per cent of the respondents considering these to be not effective or only ‘slightly’ effective. This sentiment was also vociferous in the focus groups where a strong case was made many times that email solicitation may not only be ineffective for fund-raising, but actually detrimental to an organisation’s image unless a giving relationship has already been developed through other means between the individual and the organisation. Illustrative of this strong view is the fact that as many as 53 per cent of the respondents believe that this method is simply ‘not effective’. A key factor behind this is the fact that people’s emails are already bombarded with too many unsolicited and sometimes unwelcome messages and they consider most mass-mailed emails to be intrusions on their time and private life. This may also be a reason behind the more surprising aversion to phone requests and pledge drives. In this case 45 per cent of the respondents found phone pledge drives to be not effective at all. The focus group discussions alerted us to the nuanced view that for many Pakistani Americans an unsolicited telephone pledge call from another Pakistani is more uncomfortable because the cultural affinity and formality makes it more difficult to say no.
It should be noted, however, that the reaction to websites was not as definitive as to emails. Some 45 per cent of our respondents do find these websites to be effective fund-raising tools, if only because of the information contained there. Of those who do not, only 25 per cent stated categorically that these are ‘not effective’.
Deciphering this response in the context of responses to the other questions, it seems that there is a significant cohort that does find websites a potentially useful device that can assist in fund-raising. Our focus group discussions further substantiate the view that although many are still uncomfortable about giving money through a website in general using e-commerce transactions, there is a growing number of people who will look at websites to develop the sense of comfort and trust they need before they contribute through other means. Although the survey results predate the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, that may well have been a pivotal experience in the community’s philanthropic experience in terms of the use of websites for garnering philanthropic information as well as for making philanthropic contributions. A number of institutional and informational websites became the real hub of philanthropic activity amongst Pakistani Americans in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake.
Catalysts of institutional giving: The second question we will report on asked Pakistani Americans to rate a large number of practical factors that might influence their decision to give to institutions on a five-point scale ranging from ‘very high importance’ to ‘no importance’… For an overwhelming proportion (82 per cent) of Pakistani Americans the single most important factor is the assurance that a large portion of their contribution would go directly to intended beneficiaries. This not only validates the earlier emphasis on the most direct possible giving to individuals in need but also points towards the lurking distrust of institutionalised philanthropy and the generally held feeling that many organised charities and NGOs are wasteful of resources.
The quality of the people who work for an organisation comes in at a rather distant but still impressive second position with nearly 70 per cent of our respondents rating this as of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance to them and only 10 per cent feeling that it is of ‘low’ or ‘no’ importance. This, again, probably speaks to the well-known adage that people do not give to causes, people give to people. Giving further credence to this view is the fact that over half the respondents (55 per cent) considered an organisation’s reputation to be critical to their giving decisions, and similar proportions consider the recommendation of friends and family in Pakistan (55 per cent) and in America (50 per cent) to be a critical input for their giving decisions. Given the acute crisis of trust in Pakistani institutions in general, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the importance placed on individuals and on reputations becomes central for the diaspora community. In essence, and not surprisingly, people tend to listen most to the people they trust the most.
Results described in the previous chapter had suggested that the events of September 11, 2001 have made the Pakistani diaspora more vigilant but not less giving. This vigilance is also apparent in the responses to this question. For example, over half of our respondents believe that an organisation’s being officially registered in the United States is of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance to them. Slightly under half (45 per cent) give similar importance to the ease of making financial transfers to that organisation. It is surprising, however, that in both cases nearly a quarter of the respondents feel that being registered in the USA or ease of financial transfers is of ‘no’ or ‘low’ importance to their philanthropic decisions. These responses, however, might be coming from those respondents who either give mostly to organisations in the US or who largely give to their own kinship networks in Pakistan.
Continuing with surprise results, a number of factors listed in the question did not elicit the type of enthusiasm that might have been expected. For example, organisations working in the region that people ‘belong to’ get only marginal advantage. Only a third of the respondents give high importance to organisations working in the region or locality that they grew up in or ‘belong’ to, nearly half felt that this was of ‘no’ or ‘low’ importance to them. Similarly, nearly half of the respondents felt that getting tax deductions on their contributions was not critical to whether they gave or not; however, for a significant 30 per cent this was of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance.
A separate analysis of our data suggests that this factor is much more important to higher income bracket givers, who also tend to give higher amounts and therefore can claim higher tax credits. Strikingly, some 43 per cent of our respondents feel that celebrity endorsements are not particularly important. Even more conclusive is the finding that the quality of an organisation’s marketing material is of little importance to just over half of our respondents. Obviously, people would much rather focus on the quality of the individuals in the organisation than on the marketing material. A quite conclusive finding is that most respondents (66 per cent) do not consider the size of the organisation that is seeking support to be important. This is important in that it implies that even though reputation is a key factor, size is not necessarily a limitation in an organisation’s success in raising support from the Pakistani diaspora in the USA.
The centrality of institutional trust: An overall theme that emerges from the preceding analysis is the critical importance of trust and comfort in the organisation that one is being asked to give to. Factors that can help inspire trust in an organisation become critical to the actual giving decisions of Pakistanis in America. More than half of our respondents (55 per cent) consider an organisation’s reputation to be critical to their giving decisions. Arguably, being already registered in the US (rated highly by 54 per cent), providing regular financial and performance reports (rated highly by 43 per cent), and being able to visit and review the operations of the organisation (rated highly by nearly 40 per cent) all contribute to the building of this trust and, therefore, garner important support from our respondents. However, it should be noted that institutional trust does not come easily. As we saw, nearly as many respondents consider the ability to visit and review the operations of an organisation as being of little importance, as those who believe it to be critical. Slightly more than half give ‘no’ or ‘low’ importance to marketing material from organisations and as many as 43 per cent of the respondents choose to give little importance to famous institutions or persons recommending the organisation.
While these numbers have other significance, they also reflect the views of those many participants in our focus groups who expressed serious concerns about both the ability and sincerity of philanthropic institutions and NGOs in Pakistan.
It is this rather disturbing reputation that NGOs and philanthropic organisations in Pakistan have developed that was the subject of the next question ... In this query, we asked our survey respondents to react to a set of statements about philanthropic organisations and NGOs on a four-point scale ranging from strong disagreement with the given statement to strong agreement ... The question was phrased to focus on what the diaspora feels about the sector in general in Pakistan, and not on particular organisations.
The answers received to this question are both surprising and compelling. In essence, the Pakistani diaspora in America simply does not have much trust in NGOs and philanthropic organisations in Pakistan. Even though they hold certain organisations in very high regard — the institutional names mentioned most often in our focus groups included the Human Development Foundation of North America (HDFNA), Development in Literacy (DIL), and The Citizen’s Foundation (TCF), and the individual names mentioned most often were of Abdul Sattar Edhi and Imran Khan — they are not impressed by what the sector as a whole does or has achieved.
Of those who gave an opinion on this question, over 80 per cent ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’ with the statement that philanthropic organisations (including NGOs) working in Pakistan use money efficiently and for good use; another 80 per cent were equally opposed to the proposition that these organisations are honest and ethical in their use of donated funds; over 70 per cent each disagreed with the proposition that they are effective or that they are working on important issues that need attention. This is a serious indictment and suggests that very large segments of the diaspora Pakistanis perceive the majority of philanthropic and non-governmental organisations in Pakistan to be (a) inefficient, (b) ineffective, (c) unethical, and (d) inattentive to the most pressing issues that need attention. This is not the image that these organisations would like to cultivate and, more importantly, this is not the profile of organisations that are likely to inspire philanthropic giving by Pakistanis in America. It may also be a grossly unfair characterisation. Yet, it is a perception that was deep-rooted not only in the survey results but also during the focus group discussions. This perception is clearly an important impediment to institutional giving in Pakistan and needs to be addressed before more significant resources can flow from the Pakistani diaspora to civil society organisations in Pakistan.
The opinions were less stark in terms of whether these organisations have well-meaning and competent people working for them or whether they have good ideas about how to solve Pakistan’s pressing problems. However, in both cases around 60 per cent of our respondents ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’ with these propositions. The fact that significant minorities do believe that the sector has well-meaning and competent people working in it who do have good ideas about Pakistan’s development is a silver lining, even if a small one.
On two other statements, the opinion of our respondents was more evenly split — even though in both these cases a slight majority actually chose to ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ with these sentiments. Nearly as many respondents ‘agreed’ or strongly agreed with the view that the non-governmental sector plays an important role in Pakistan’s development as those who ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’. And at least 45 per cent ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the view that these organisations do a good job of raising funds in the United States. Both of these, however, are restrained compliments. For example, a number of our focus group participants believe that these organisations end up playing a role in Pakistan’s development mostly because other institutions — and particularly the government — do such a bad job of fulfilling their developmental responsibilities.
An image problem for NGOs: It should also be noted that the impression received from the focus group is that the Pakistani diaspora lacks faith not just in the non-governmental sector in Pakistan, but in all institutions in Pakistan. Between them, the reactions received on these last four statements suggest that there is room for improving the sector’s image amongst the Pakistani diaspora, but the sector does have an image building challenge ahead of it.
A few additional points should be kept in mind as we interpret these results. First, it was clear to the respondents that they were being asked to give their views on the Pakistani philanthropic sector as a whole and the collectivity of such organisations rather than about particular organisations. In a number of cases, our respondents made clear (either verbally or by writing notes on the survey forms) that whatever views they were expressing related to such organisations ‘in general’ and not to particular organisations they knew of. Indeed, it is noteworthy that, based on the focus group discussions, most people seemed to have a largely negative impression of Pakistani NGOs in general but a largely positive impression of those NGOs that they had themselves come into contact with. This suggests a serious image problem for the NGO sector in Pakistan that deserves attention and which is eroding faith in the efficacy and sincerity of civil society in Pakistan.
A second point to note is that all eight statements that were tested were worded positively. The fact that most respondents still chose to record very negative impressions is noteworthy. More noteworthy, however, is the fact that for each of the eight statements, the number of respondents who strongly disagreed with the statement was significantly more than those who strongly agreed. In essence, not only do more respondents lack trust in the NGO sector, but those who are critical tend to be very strongly critical while those who are supportive are only mildly supportive. For example, only three per cent of those who responded, articulated strong agreement with the view that NGOs and philanthropic organisations are honest and ethical in their use of donated funds; however, as many as 27 per cent strongly disagreed with this sentiment. Similarly, only four per cent said that they strongly agreed with the view that in general these organisations used the resources donated to them efficiently and for good use; however, more than 25 per cent strongly disagreed with this view. It should be disturbing to those in the sector that their distracters hold much stronger opinions about the sector than their supporters.
Finally, by way of comparison it should be stressed that the trend emerging from our survey runs contrary to the general trend around the world. Civil society organisations, and especially charitable organisations, tend to usually have a mostly positive image in society. For example, a similar survey of philanthropic attitudes of the entire US population found that over 70 per cent felt that the need for such organisations was more compelling than before, 68 per cent believed that most organisations are honest in their use of donated funds, and 82 per cent believed that these organisations play an important role in speaking out on important issues.
Although our questions are somewhat different, the stark comparison between the generally very positive impression that Americans have of American organisations and the generally very negative impression that Pakistani Americans have of Pakistani organisations is thought provoking. The finding that the Pakistani diaspora in the United States has such a low opinion of the sector makes one wonder whether Pakistanis in Pakistan feel the same way; after all, the opinion of the Pakistani diaspora is most influenced by the views of their friends, family and the media in Pakistan.
Excerpted by Dawn with permission from:
Portrait of a Giving Community: Philanthropy by the Pakistani-American Diaspora
By Adil Najam
Global Equity Initiative
Asia Centre, Harvard University
ISBN 0-674-02366-8
231pp. Price not listed
The survey questionnaire directly tackled the question of motivation and asked respondents how important each of a set of motivations was in making their philanthropic decisions. They were asked to rate a set of given statements on a five-point scale ranging from ‘very high importance’ to ‘no importance’.
The results from this analysis highlight a number of interesting findings … The single most important philanthropic impulse on the generosity of Pakistanis in America is a desire to directly help individuals in need, including friends and extended family in their kinship networks. Nearly 80 per cent of our respondents rated the desire to directly help individuals in need as being of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance for them and only four per cent considered this to be of ‘low’ or ‘no’ importance. In fact, the second highest ranked category is directly related and only amplifies this result, with nearly 70 per cent of our respondents ranking the ability to help their kinship networks (friends and extended family) as being of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance to them. The only surprise here is that, contrary to what one might have assumed, there is a notable minority (over 10 per cent) that considers assistance to kinship networks as being of ‘low’ or ‘no importance’.
In terms of the role of faith as a motivator of giving, it is not a surprise (given what we have already found from other parts of the survey) that over 60 per cent of our respondents believe that their religious obligation to give is a major motivation of their philanthropy. What is striking and noteworthy, however, is that one in five of all respondents believes that the religious duty to give is of ‘low’ or ‘no’ importance to their philanthropic decisions. This should be contextualised with the response to a different statement on this question which referred to causes related to one’s religious identity. Interestingly, about as many respondents (a little more than a third each) consider giving to religious causes to be of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance as those who consider it to be of ‘no’ or ‘low’ importance.
Indeed, community motivations seem to be as strong a pull as faith-based motivations. Nearly as many people listed the desire to return something to the community they grew up in as being of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance to them as those who rated the religious duty to give as an important motivator. More tellingly, the number of respondents who felt that giving back to the community they grew up in is of ‘no’ or ‘low’ importance is notably lower than those who rank the religious duty to give as a low motivation. It becomes even more clear that community is a strong motivator of philanthropy by Pakistanis in America as one looks at some of the other results from this question. It is not just that our respondents place value on giving back to the community they grew up in, but more than half (54 per cent) also consider giving to the community they now live in as being of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance. In defining the notion of community more broadly, the same number of respondents (54 per cent) consider philanthropy directed at issues important to Pakistan’s development to be important to them.
Other possible motivations fail to garner clear enthusiasm from our respondents. Giving to important global issues on the one hand, and giving to religious causes on the other, both show very mixed results with about as many respondents rating these as important motivations as those who did not. What is striking, however, is the very obvious lack of enthusiasm for giving to educational institutions. Nearly half of our respondents felt that returning something to the educational institution they had attended was of ‘no’ or ‘low’ importance to them; under 30 per cent felt that it was of ‘high’ or ‘very high importance’.
This is rather surprising given that one of the most important assets that Pakistani-American professionals (for example, doctors, engineers, etc.) tend to bring with them from Pakistan when they come to the US is their education and training. Arguably, this may also be a function of the fact that (according to many of our focus group participants) most Pakistanis in America are never asked to contribute by the educational institutions they attended in Pakistan. Except for a handful of institutions such as the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) or the Aga Khan University (AKU), a culture of giving to educational institutions — or even considering these as potential recipients of one’s philanthropy — has not really developed amongst the Pakistani diaspora in America. Indeed, more of our focus group participants reported giving back something to the universities they attended in the US than to the institutions they went to in Pakistan.
What makes people give: If motivations are the things that pull people towards giving by resonating with the reasons they consider worthy of their philanthropic support, there are also a set of more practical considerations — such as simply how easy or difficult it is to give to a particular cause or organisation — that push people to convert their intention to give into an actual contribution. We will now turn our attention to these practical motors of philanthropy. What are the types of things that can turn a person’s well-meaning desire to be philanthropic into an actual act of philanthropy?
The obvious place to begin exploring this question is to look at our respondents’ attitudes to different methods of fund-raising. The survey questionnaire presented our respondents with a list of fund-raising methods and asked them to rate the effectiveness of each method on a five-point scale ranging from ‘very highly effective’ to ‘not effective’. The critical lesson to be drawn from the analysis of the responses received is clear even from a cursory glance at the accompanying figure. Nothing is as effective in raising funds for an organisation or cause as personal testimonials and appeals by friends and family in the US or in Pakistan. Again, we seem to be confirming the adage that ‘people do not give to organisations, people give to people’. This result is not surprising, but the intensity with which this view is held is compelling. It is not only that about 65 per cent of our respondents consider fund-raising appeals by friends and family to be ‘highly’ or ‘very highly’ effective, it is also that if we include those who rated these as ‘effective’ the total number jumps up to over 85 per cent.
To an appreciable extent, visits by representatives of the organisations allow people to get a more detailed picture of what the organisation is doing and to develop a sense of comfort with the organisation that is seeking their support. However, there is lingering scepticism about such visits which were described by one of our focus group participants as “marketing and sales routines.” Hence, we see that although 70 per cent of respondents do consider these effective to some degree, only 32 per cent feel that they are ‘highly’ or ‘very highly’ effective. The methods that are probably the most commonly used — cultural events, formal fund-raiser events, and celebrity endorsements — seem to solicit only lukewarm approval. In each of these cases, around 20 per cent of our respondents do consider these to be ‘highly’ or ‘very highly’ effective, but as many as 40 to 50 per cent feel they are either ‘not effective’ or only ‘slightly effective’.
Interestingly, many of the methods that are most popular for fund-raising by US organisations — websites, membership dues, mass mailing, media advertising, phone requests and pledges, and email solicitations — receive little enthusiasm from Pakistani Americans. Membership dues, mass mailings, media advertising, and phone pledge drives are all immensely popular and powerful fund-raising tools for US charitable organisations. Yet, the percentage of our respondents who considered any of these to be ‘highly’ or ‘very highly’ effective was in the single digits. In each case, between 60 per cent (for membership dues) to 75 per cent (for phone pledge drives) of our respondents found these to be either not effective at all or only ‘slightly’ effective.
Nothing is as effective in raising funds for an organisation or cause as personal testimonials and appeals by friends and family in the US or in Pakistan. Again, we seem to be confirming the adage that ‘people do not give to organisations, people give to people’
Email solicitations received the most negative reaction with over 80 per cent of the respondents considering these to be not effective or only ‘slightly’ effective. This sentiment was also vociferous in the focus groups where a strong case was made many times that email solicitation may not only be ineffective for fund-raising, but actually detrimental to an organisation’s image unless a giving relationship has already been developed through other means between the individual and the organisation. Illustrative of this strong view is the fact that as many as 53 per cent of the respondents believe that this method is simply ‘not effective’. A key factor behind this is the fact that people’s emails are already bombarded with too many unsolicited and sometimes unwelcome messages and they consider most mass-mailed emails to be intrusions on their time and private life. This may also be a reason behind the more surprising aversion to phone requests and pledge drives. In this case 45 per cent of the respondents found phone pledge drives to be not effective at all. The focus group discussions alerted us to the nuanced view that for many Pakistani Americans an unsolicited telephone pledge call from another Pakistani is more uncomfortable because the cultural affinity and formality makes it more difficult to say no.
It should be noted, however, that the reaction to websites was not as definitive as to emails. Some 45 per cent of our respondents do find these websites to be effective fund-raising tools, if only because of the information contained there. Of those who do not, only 25 per cent stated categorically that these are ‘not effective’.
Deciphering this response in the context of responses to the other questions, it seems that there is a significant cohort that does find websites a potentially useful device that can assist in fund-raising. Our focus group discussions further substantiate the view that although many are still uncomfortable about giving money through a website in general using e-commerce transactions, there is a growing number of people who will look at websites to develop the sense of comfort and trust they need before they contribute through other means. Although the survey results predate the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, that may well have been a pivotal experience in the community’s philanthropic experience in terms of the use of websites for garnering philanthropic information as well as for making philanthropic contributions. A number of institutional and informational websites became the real hub of philanthropic activity amongst Pakistani Americans in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake.
Catalysts of institutional giving: The second question we will report on asked Pakistani Americans to rate a large number of practical factors that might influence their decision to give to institutions on a five-point scale ranging from ‘very high importance’ to ‘no importance’… For an overwhelming proportion (82 per cent) of Pakistani Americans the single most important factor is the assurance that a large portion of their contribution would go directly to intended beneficiaries. This not only validates the earlier emphasis on the most direct possible giving to individuals in need but also points towards the lurking distrust of institutionalised philanthropy and the generally held feeling that many organised charities and NGOs are wasteful of resources.
The quality of the people who work for an organisation comes in at a rather distant but still impressive second position with nearly 70 per cent of our respondents rating this as of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance to them and only 10 per cent feeling that it is of ‘low’ or ‘no’ importance. This, again, probably speaks to the well-known adage that people do not give to causes, people give to people. Giving further credence to this view is the fact that over half the respondents (55 per cent) considered an organisation’s reputation to be critical to their giving decisions, and similar proportions consider the recommendation of friends and family in Pakistan (55 per cent) and in America (50 per cent) to be a critical input for their giving decisions. Given the acute crisis of trust in Pakistani institutions in general, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the importance placed on individuals and on reputations becomes central for the diaspora community. In essence, and not surprisingly, people tend to listen most to the people they trust the most.
Results described in the previous chapter had suggested that the events of September 11, 2001 have made the Pakistani diaspora more vigilant but not less giving. This vigilance is also apparent in the responses to this question. For example, over half of our respondents believe that an organisation’s being officially registered in the United States is of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance to them. Slightly under half (45 per cent) give similar importance to the ease of making financial transfers to that organisation. It is surprising, however, that in both cases nearly a quarter of the respondents feel that being registered in the USA or ease of financial transfers is of ‘no’ or ‘low’ importance to their philanthropic decisions. These responses, however, might be coming from those respondents who either give mostly to organisations in the US or who largely give to their own kinship networks in Pakistan.
Continuing with surprise results, a number of factors listed in the question did not elicit the type of enthusiasm that might have been expected. For example, organisations working in the region that people ‘belong to’ get only marginal advantage. Only a third of the respondents give high importance to organisations working in the region or locality that they grew up in or ‘belong’ to, nearly half felt that this was of ‘no’ or ‘low’ importance to them. Similarly, nearly half of the respondents felt that getting tax deductions on their contributions was not critical to whether they gave or not; however, for a significant 30 per cent this was of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ importance.
A separate analysis of our data suggests that this factor is much more important to higher income bracket givers, who also tend to give higher amounts and therefore can claim higher tax credits. Strikingly, some 43 per cent of our respondents feel that celebrity endorsements are not particularly important. Even more conclusive is the finding that the quality of an organisation’s marketing material is of little importance to just over half of our respondents. Obviously, people would much rather focus on the quality of the individuals in the organisation than on the marketing material. A quite conclusive finding is that most respondents (66 per cent) do not consider the size of the organisation that is seeking support to be important. This is important in that it implies that even though reputation is a key factor, size is not necessarily a limitation in an organisation’s success in raising support from the Pakistani diaspora in the USA.
The centrality of institutional trust: An overall theme that emerges from the preceding analysis is the critical importance of trust and comfort in the organisation that one is being asked to give to. Factors that can help inspire trust in an organisation become critical to the actual giving decisions of Pakistanis in America. More than half of our respondents (55 per cent) consider an organisation’s reputation to be critical to their giving decisions. Arguably, being already registered in the US (rated highly by 54 per cent), providing regular financial and performance reports (rated highly by 43 per cent), and being able to visit and review the operations of the organisation (rated highly by nearly 40 per cent) all contribute to the building of this trust and, therefore, garner important support from our respondents. However, it should be noted that institutional trust does not come easily. As we saw, nearly as many respondents consider the ability to visit and review the operations of an organisation as being of little importance, as those who believe it to be critical. Slightly more than half give ‘no’ or ‘low’ importance to marketing material from organisations and as many as 43 per cent of the respondents choose to give little importance to famous institutions or persons recommending the organisation.
While these numbers have other significance, they also reflect the views of those many participants in our focus groups who expressed serious concerns about both the ability and sincerity of philanthropic institutions and NGOs in Pakistan.
It is this rather disturbing reputation that NGOs and philanthropic organisations in Pakistan have developed that was the subject of the next question ... In this query, we asked our survey respondents to react to a set of statements about philanthropic organisations and NGOs on a four-point scale ranging from strong disagreement with the given statement to strong agreement ... The question was phrased to focus on what the diaspora feels about the sector in general in Pakistan, and not on particular organisations.
The answers received to this question are both surprising and compelling. In essence, the Pakistani diaspora in America simply does not have much trust in NGOs and philanthropic organisations in Pakistan. Even though they hold certain organisations in very high regard — the institutional names mentioned most often in our focus groups included the Human Development Foundation of North America (HDFNA), Development in Literacy (DIL), and The Citizen’s Foundation (TCF), and the individual names mentioned most often were of Abdul Sattar Edhi and Imran Khan — they are not impressed by what the sector as a whole does or has achieved.
Of those who gave an opinion on this question, over 80 per cent ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’ with the statement that philanthropic organisations (including NGOs) working in Pakistan use money efficiently and for good use; another 80 per cent were equally opposed to the proposition that these organisations are honest and ethical in their use of donated funds; over 70 per cent each disagreed with the proposition that they are effective or that they are working on important issues that need attention. This is a serious indictment and suggests that very large segments of the diaspora Pakistanis perceive the majority of philanthropic and non-governmental organisations in Pakistan to be (a) inefficient, (b) ineffective, (c) unethical, and (d) inattentive to the most pressing issues that need attention. This is not the image that these organisations would like to cultivate and, more importantly, this is not the profile of organisations that are likely to inspire philanthropic giving by Pakistanis in America. It may also be a grossly unfair characterisation. Yet, it is a perception that was deep-rooted not only in the survey results but also during the focus group discussions. This perception is clearly an important impediment to institutional giving in Pakistan and needs to be addressed before more significant resources can flow from the Pakistani diaspora to civil society organisations in Pakistan.
The opinions were less stark in terms of whether these organisations have well-meaning and competent people working for them or whether they have good ideas about how to solve Pakistan’s pressing problems. However, in both cases around 60 per cent of our respondents ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’ with these propositions. The fact that significant minorities do believe that the sector has well-meaning and competent people working in it who do have good ideas about Pakistan’s development is a silver lining, even if a small one.
On two other statements, the opinion of our respondents was more evenly split — even though in both these cases a slight majority actually chose to ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ with these sentiments. Nearly as many respondents ‘agreed’ or strongly agreed with the view that the non-governmental sector plays an important role in Pakistan’s development as those who ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’. And at least 45 per cent ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the view that these organisations do a good job of raising funds in the United States. Both of these, however, are restrained compliments. For example, a number of our focus group participants believe that these organisations end up playing a role in Pakistan’s development mostly because other institutions — and particularly the government — do such a bad job of fulfilling their developmental responsibilities.
An image problem for NGOs: It should also be noted that the impression received from the focus group is that the Pakistani diaspora lacks faith not just in the non-governmental sector in Pakistan, but in all institutions in Pakistan. Between them, the reactions received on these last four statements suggest that there is room for improving the sector’s image amongst the Pakistani diaspora, but the sector does have an image building challenge ahead of it.
A few additional points should be kept in mind as we interpret these results. First, it was clear to the respondents that they were being asked to give their views on the Pakistani philanthropic sector as a whole and the collectivity of such organisations rather than about particular organisations. In a number of cases, our respondents made clear (either verbally or by writing notes on the survey forms) that whatever views they were expressing related to such organisations ‘in general’ and not to particular organisations they knew of. Indeed, it is noteworthy that, based on the focus group discussions, most people seemed to have a largely negative impression of Pakistani NGOs in general but a largely positive impression of those NGOs that they had themselves come into contact with. This suggests a serious image problem for the NGO sector in Pakistan that deserves attention and which is eroding faith in the efficacy and sincerity of civil society in Pakistan.
A second point to note is that all eight statements that were tested were worded positively. The fact that most respondents still chose to record very negative impressions is noteworthy. More noteworthy, however, is the fact that for each of the eight statements, the number of respondents who strongly disagreed with the statement was significantly more than those who strongly agreed. In essence, not only do more respondents lack trust in the NGO sector, but those who are critical tend to be very strongly critical while those who are supportive are only mildly supportive. For example, only three per cent of those who responded, articulated strong agreement with the view that NGOs and philanthropic organisations are honest and ethical in their use of donated funds; however, as many as 27 per cent strongly disagreed with this sentiment. Similarly, only four per cent said that they strongly agreed with the view that in general these organisations used the resources donated to them efficiently and for good use; however, more than 25 per cent strongly disagreed with this view. It should be disturbing to those in the sector that their distracters hold much stronger opinions about the sector than their supporters.
Finally, by way of comparison it should be stressed that the trend emerging from our survey runs contrary to the general trend around the world. Civil society organisations, and especially charitable organisations, tend to usually have a mostly positive image in society. For example, a similar survey of philanthropic attitudes of the entire US population found that over 70 per cent felt that the need for such organisations was more compelling than before, 68 per cent believed that most organisations are honest in their use of donated funds, and 82 per cent believed that these organisations play an important role in speaking out on important issues.
Although our questions are somewhat different, the stark comparison between the generally very positive impression that Americans have of American organisations and the generally very negative impression that Pakistani Americans have of Pakistani organisations is thought provoking. The finding that the Pakistani diaspora in the United States has such a low opinion of the sector makes one wonder whether Pakistanis in Pakistan feel the same way; after all, the opinion of the Pakistani diaspora is most influenced by the views of their friends, family and the media in Pakistan.
Excerpted by Dawn with permission from:
Portrait of a Giving Community: Philanthropy by the Pakistani-American Diaspora
By Adil Najam
Global Equity Initiative
Asia Centre, Harvard University
ISBN 0-674-02366-8
231pp. Price not listed
