research proposal

Research Proposal:

Charitable Donation

Category Audit

A study to determine what information, when clearly conveyed to a potential donor, will increase the likelihood of preferential donation.

Research Proposal 3733_MANAGEMT_7250

A. Falconer-Edwards – A1197314 I. Coker – A1702846

1

Table of Contents

I. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 2

Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Mission Statement.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Keys to Success ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

II. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Background ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Business Problem................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

III. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Research Problem .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Research Objectives .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Research Proposition ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

IV. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Literature Review ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Motivating Factors ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Awareness of Need .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Solicitation ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Costs and Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Altruism ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Reputation ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Psychological Benefits ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Values ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8

Efficacy .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8

Donor Types .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Everyday Donors.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8

High Net Worth Individuals: .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8

Corporate Donors: ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

V. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Research Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Literature Review ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11

Survey Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Category Development ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Category Graphic Design ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Focus Group ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Data Collection, Analysis and Revision ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12

VI. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Administration and Logistics ............................................................................................................................. 13

Budget ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Project Timeline ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Project Deliverables ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15

VII. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... References .......................................................................................................................................................... 16

2

Executive Summary

This research proposal sets out the framework for the execution of the University of

Adelaide capstone ‘Social Enterprise Project’.

Objectives

The key propositions that will be investigated through this research are:

It is proposed that current charitable donors, and potential donors, are concerned

with the level of transparency of charitable organisations. It is further proposed that

an increase in perceived transparency may result in an increase in donations from

existing and potential donors.

It is proposed that a simple, concise and intuitive methodology of detailing the key

operations and activities of the charity can be developed by determining the key

parameters of interest to the public.

Mission Statement

To determine to what extent donor behaviour will be impacted by providing

clear, concise and transparent data on the operations of a charitable

organisation.

Keys to Success

Progressing the research in a timely, effective and objective manner in line with the

Project Timeline will assist in progressing and increasing the understanding of how

charitable transparency impacts the behaviour of donors.

The initial literature review has determined that there are indeed donor segments

that are positively influenced by the transparency of charitable organisations and

negatively influenced by the potential reputational damage from charitable

organisation scandal. By leveraging further literature analysis, in combination with

qualitative and quantitative research methodologies, a thorough analysis can be

undertaken with actions to be determined as an outcome.

3

Introduction

The Australian charity and non-profit sector is a $104 billion a year industry. Today,

more than ever, donors and the broader public are expecting greater transparency of

how these charitable organisations execute their charitable remit. How can the

activities of individual charities be conveyed in a clear and concise manner to

increase the transparency of their operations? Will this increase the likelihood of

preferential donations on a like-for-like basis?

Background

Charitable donations are engrained into the Australian psyche. Whether it is passing

volunteers collecting change in the street, purchasing groceries that contribute to

charitable causes or television advertisements spruiking a charity raffle, we are

constantly bombarded with requests to donate. Despite the low key pervasiveness of

the eliciting of these donations, charitable donations are big business.

During the financial year 2015-16 Australian individuals donated $12.5 billion

dollars per year to charities and non-profit organisations. During the same period,

Australian businesses gave $17.6 billion dollars through community partnerships,

donations and non-commercial sponsorships. (Cortis, Young, Powell, Reeve,

Simneet, Ho & Ramia 2016). A further $42 billion dollars is provided by way of

government grants. The charity and non-profit sector is a $104 billion dollar

industry and is responsible for employing one in every ten Australians (Cortis et al.,

2016). Charity is big business. It contributes 3.8 per cent of Australian GDP; “a

contribution more than twice as large as the entire economic contribution of the

state of Tasmania; and larger than the agricultural, forestry and fishing industries

(2.4 per cent) and the information, media and telecommunications and media

industries (3 per cent)” (Cortis et al., 2016). Despite the magnitude of the financial

contribution, the industry is completely fragmented and broadly unsophisticated

both in terms of operational execution and regulation.

The pool of charitable organisations is busy and is growing increasingly crowded.

There are currently 54,000 registered charities (McGregor-Lowndes & Myles, 2014)

which makes differentiation and marketing of individual charitable ventures

challenging. This challenge is further exacerbated as new charities are registered at a

rate of nine new charities every day (Pascoe, 2016). Gaining visibility in a crowded

market, and demonstrating relevancy, is challenging for organisations that often

have inadequate resourcing. Lack of experience and governance expertise is a key

contributor to why so many charities are routinely deregistered for not completing

mandatory reporting (PBA, 2016). The administrative and logistical costs required to

run a charity, combined with organisations that often have little practical business

and operational experience, contributes to high running costs and a reduction in the

final monies that are used to directly support the beneficiaries.

4

Business Problem

Recent scandals in the charitable sector are shaking the confidence of both individuals and

businesses. This will lead to higher scrutiny of donations to these organisations. The two

areas that are attracting media scrutiny. Firstly, the performance of charities in discharging

their stated goals in a responsible and financially responsible way. Secondly, opportunistic

contractors exploiting the goodwill and naivety of charities to secure a portion of the $30

billion dollars flowing to charities on a yearly basis. These challenges pose a threat to the

charities as it will lead to fewer donations across the sector and potentially an increase in

governance and regulatory requirements that will further increase the administrative

burden associated with running a charity.

Therefore, to gain a competitive advantage in a crowded market place, individual charities

should prioritise increasing awareness and transparency in how they maximise throughput

of donations to the beneficiary. Furthermore, by demonstrating a high level of regulatory

compliance and accountability, combined with efficient back office functions, the

organisation can further demonstrate their effectiveness while limiting reputational risk.

These actions will increase the likelihood of the organisation receiving donations from the

public on a like-for-like comparison.

Demonstrating relevance in a competitive and crowded market is critical for small and

medium charities to ensure that they have the requisite funds. Additionally, being able to

demonstrate that the received donations will meaningfully impact the beneficiary is a

consideration that drives donor behaviour (Cordery & Baskerville, 2011). If the current

trend of opacity and growing mistrust continues grow, the following implications can be

expected:

 Reduced percent of the population making donations;

 Reduced size of donated amounts;

 Reduced necessary social support;

 Increased number of failing organisations; and

 Continued exploitation of organisations by opportunities contractors.

As the cost of regulatory compliance continues to grow, potential donors will increasingly

scrutinise the percentage of the donation that reaches the beneficiary. With over fifty-

thousand registered charities, many of which are small scale operations, it is clear that

lessons learnt and common functions can be shared, thus ensuring that the charity can

maximise their time and effort on the supporting the beneficiary. By simplifying their

operations and driving efficiencies through their organisation, charities can maximise the

benefit they provide to their beneficiaries while also discerning a competitive advantage in

attracting donations.

5

Objectives

Research Problem

The research problem can be defined as:

1. “How dependent is the likelihood of a charitable donation on the perceived

transparency of the charitable organization?”

2. “What are the community’s attitudes to charitable giving and, in particular, would

the likelihood of giving be influenced if the charitable activities of a charitable

organization was conveyed in a simple and effective format?”

Research Objectives

The key objectives of the research are to identify:

1. The extent to which donations are influenced by the perceived transparency

and accountability of a charitable organisation;

2. What the key categories of information are regarding the operations and

activities of the charitable organisation that donors are interested in;

3. What priority donors assign to the categories of information;

4. The extent to which donors would be influenced by the presentation of

relevant charitable organisation information to increase transparency;

5. How the information can be most effectively conveyed in a simple, concise

and intuitive manner;

6. Whether the presentation of this information would increase charitable

donations to organisations which conveyed this information; and

7. Whether there are difference in attitude to this information by demographic.

Research Proposition

It is proposed that current charitable donors, and potential donors, are concerned

with the level of transparency of charitable organisations. It is further proposed that

an increase in perceived transparency may result in an increase in donations from

existing and potential donors.

It is proposed that a simple, concise and intuitive methodology of detailing the key

operations and activities of the charity can be developed by determining the key

parameters of interest to the public.

These two hypotheses should be explored as part of the research process.

6

Literature Review

Figure 1 – nVivo word cloud exhibiting the word frequency count as an outcome of the literature review

demonstrating the key themes surrounding charitable organization transparency.

Overview

The literature review was undertaken with a focus on three key questions:

 What motivates one to donate?

 What disincentives’ one to donate?

 What impact does transparency have on donor behaviour?

When considering these lines of enquiry, three donor segments were identified as

each having distinct behavioural patterns and motivating and demotivating variables

that vary inversely between and similarly within.

The three donor segments are:

 Everyday donors;

 High net worth individuals; and

 Corporate donors.

7

Motivating Factors

For the purpose of standardising our approach to each segment we considered

Bekkers and Weipking’s, ‘Eight mechanism that drive charitable giving’ review as

a good basis of evaluation. It is proposed that these eight forces can be

summarised under the following subjects:

Awareness of Need

People have to become aware of a need for support it which is largely beyond

the control of donors, and driven by the media and is the result of actions

charitable organizations.

Solicitation

Refers to the act of being solicited to donate. A large majority of all donation

acts occurs in response to a solicitation. The more solicitations for donations

people encounter, the more likely they are to give.

Costs and Benefits

This relates to the costs and benefits associated with donating, it is the “tangible

monetary consequences of making a donation”. When the cost of a donation is

lowered, giving increases. This is not only true for the absolute costs, which can

be lowered through fiscal incentives, but also for the perception of the costs of a

donation. Often donations to charitable organisations result in a personal

benefits: e.g., a services or incentive. When people receive material benefits in

return, they tend to undermine self-attributions of helpfulness, which reduces

the effect of prosocial self-attributions on future helpfulness.

Altruism

People contribute to charities because they care about the output of the

organisation, or for the tangible consequences of donations for the beneficiaries.

Reputation

Reputation refers to the social consequences of donating, typically viewed as a

positive thing to do, especially when giving reduces inequality. People who give

to charitable causes are held in high regard by their peers and relish the

recognition and approval that they receive from others.

Psychological Benefits

Giving not only yields social benefits, but also psychological benefits for the

donor. Giving may contribute to one’s self-image as an altruistic, empathic,

socially responsible, agreeable or influential person. In many cases it provides an

almost automatic emotional response, producing a positive mood, alleviating

feelings of guilt, reducing aversive arousal, satisfying a desire to show gratitude,

or to be a morally just person.

8

Values

Attitudes and values endorsed by donors make charitable giving more or less

attractive to donors. Donations can also be instrumental to representing one’s

specific values, but this is captured by the mechanism of reputation.

Efficacy

Efficacy refers to the perception of donors that their contribution makes a

difference to the cause they are supporting. People perceive that their

contribution will not make a difference, they are less likely to give or leave a

charitable bequest.

Donor Types

Everyday Donors

Total individual giving in Australia is estimated at $12.5 billion, of which

individual tax payers claimed $2.29 billion (McGregor-Lowndes & Crittall, 2016).

Whilst individual giving in Australia only recovered in 2013-14 (McGregor-

Lowndes & Crittall, 2016) post GFC there is evidence to show that those who

continued to give have been giving more. This supports that motivation in this

segment is driven largely through the values, efficiency and psychological

mechanisms.

This point is supported further by the fact that religious institutions are

recipients of the largest share of individual giving in Australia, followed by social

welfare and community services, health and medical research, education and

overseas aid. This group predominantly donate with no intent of making regular

or planned ongoing donations. Their motivations range from again from purely

altruistic drive through to obligation/solicitation or event reputation. Further

socio-demographic factors, such as income level, life experience, age, marital

status, and personal and social behaviours also influence giving behaviour

(Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011) in this category. Personal values play a vital role in

shaping individual’s giving (Scaife et al., 2012), with values established in

childhood by family culture and history which develops into a sense of

responsibility.

For individuals transparency does not play a significant role in the donor’s

decision making process. This is because often giving for individuals in not a

long term commitment and is directly related to solicitation rather than efficiency

and cost/benefit.

High Net Worth Individuals:

When considering the giving behaviour of High Net Worth Individuals

(HNWIs), the mere fact that they have increased access to finances provides that

they have the greatest capacity to contribute (Elliott & Pilkington, 2015; OECD,

2011), and as such they give generously. Large donations from Australian

HNWIs have increased in recent years (Strickland, 2014), much of this occurring

through structured giving vehicles, covered by the umbrella terms of trusts and

foundations. Many donors are therefore being motivated by cost and benefit.

9

The importance of transparency to this segment is a strong motivator as is the

importance of positive social impact to HNWI donors. A number of researchers

have proposed typologies for affluent donors, such as Cermak, File and Prince

(1994) who clustered affluent donors into four distinct types as Affiliators,

Pragmatists, Repayers and Dynasts. Affiliators are those who give to those

aligned with their personal value, Pragmatists, those who give back to grass root

level, Repayers, those who give in return and Dynasts, giving because of family

tradition.

Similarly, Prince and File (1995; Prince and File (1994) and Prince, File and

Gillespie (1993) segment affluent individual donors into seven distinct types,

based on needs, motivations and benefits sought from the giving experience;

while other authors (Abeles & Kohler, 2009), distinguish between ‘passionate’

(triggered by an event or encounter with an individual or an organisation) or

‘rational’ where the philanthropist selects a societal issue, before researching the

organisations in the sector likely to contribute in the most efficient way.

This group are increasingly asking themselves what needs to happen to actually

solve some of the world’s biggest problems and as such are not only motivated

by altruism, but also by efficiency, being that they want to know that their

contribution makes a difference.

Corporate Donors:

Business giving has in recent years evolved and moved away from a purely

altruistic exercise to one where mutual benefits are sought and one where giving

is a major part of most business strategy (Centre for Corporate Public Affairs

and Business Council of Australia, 2007).

One of the most significant developments that has had an impact on business

giving is the emergence of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), or as it has

been described by some leading commentators, “Corporate Social Opportunity”

(Grayson & Hodges, 2004). CSR builds sustainability and public interest into

business decision making and activities (McKee et al. 2013) and is a mechanism

which aids in building trust and respect within their businesses respective

consumer groups. As such, CSR has a positive impact, and is directly connected

to revenue growth and profitability. Managers are recognising rewards in terms

of influence, reputation and competitive survival from working voluntarily

towards lifted social standards (Livesey, 2001) and it is therefore fair to say that

business are highly motivated to donate for reputational and cost benefit

reasons.

There is further evidence to suggest motivation for giving in this segment is

influenced by the desire to improve society in the geographic area in which the

business operates. Businesses are more likely to support causes if it aligns with

their respective business interests. For example, legal service providers are more

likely to provide pro-bono legal support to the community though pro-bono

charitable organisations than they are to plant trees for the nature conservation

society.

Transparency in this sector is a fundamental consideration and motivator as

should organisations support causes that are found to be disingenuous they risk

10

reputational damage. A company’s overall reputation is a function of its

reputation amongst stakeholders, so anything that exposes or aligns an

organisation to misleading, dishonest or misaligned causes threatens positive

reputation for the company overall and will have impact on the sustainability of a

business.

Summary

Everyday ndividual giving is influenced by Awareness of Need driven by the

media, Solicitation, Psychological Benefits in that giving contributes to one’s self-

image as an altruistic, empathic, socially responsible, or influential person and

Values in that donating endorses one’s specific values. They are demotivated by

the costs burden of giving and as such will go for lower costs initiatives and they

are not primarily influenced by transparency.

HNWI giving is motivated by Altruism, in that they contribute because they care

about the consequences of donations for beneficiaries, Reputation in that they

receive recognition and approval from their peers. Efficacy in that they are

concerned that their contribution makes a difference and Costs and Benefits by

way of using fiscal incentives to reduce their cost of giving. They too are

motivated by family tradition and giving back to society. Transparency is a

significant consideration in this segment too.

Corporate giving is driven predominantly by Costs and Benefits in that business

are seeking a return on their investment, Reputation and Values with reputation

being the most significant motivator and making sure values are aligned and

transparency is of utmost consideration as aligning with a cause that is found to

be disingenuous poses significant negative reputational risk.

11

Research Methodology

The research methodology outlines the way that data will be collected and analysed to address the

research question.

Literature Review

The literature review will continue as an iterative process throughout the research

project to reference and align findings as they become apparent, in addition to

providing direction with which to progress the research. Specifically, the ongoing

literature review will be central to developing questions for the survey, providing

structure for the focus groups and providing hypothesises with which to analyse the

data.

Survey Questionnaire

The survey seeks to build on the hypotheses that have been drawn from the

literature review in order to build context and generate data to support the research

objectives. Using the literature review as a baseline of the current findings and

theoretical understanding of charitable organisation transparency, and how this

influences the propensity of the public to donate. Specifically, the survey will seek to

build gather data on the current donation habits of a representative group of the

Australian general public. The survey will further seek to understand what factors

limit the amount that donors, or potential donors, may be will to contribute to a

charitable organisation. Building on this data, the survey will then seek to determine

what type of information would alleviate the concerns and whether the presentation

of this information would increase the likelihood, and amount, that a potential

donor would be willing to donate. Lastly, the questionnaire will seek to understand

how participants would prefer to see this information.

The survey will be built in Qualtrics and distributed by email and social media. The

survey will be developed to ensure that the parameters meet the definition of

‘negligible risk’ under the Adelaide University Code of Ethics to expedite the

development and distribution of the survey. The survey data generated in Qualtrics

will be exported to Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS to perform computational and

statistical analysis.

Specifically, the survey will seek to estimate the relationships between variables to

determine whether increased transparency will increase the likelihood or total

amount donated, what information would increase the perceived transparency of a

charity and how this information can be most effectively conveyed. The importance

of these variables will be primarily determined via regression analysis.

12

Category Development

The conclusions drawn from the survey will be used to formulate and prioritise the

categories of information that would increase the likelihood of donating, or result in

an increase donation amount. The categories, and number of discrete categories, will

be determined and supported by the regression analysis. Primarily, the analysis will

seek to determine what information, when presented, will increase the likelihood,

and increase the total amount donated, to a charity.

Category Graphic Design

Once the categories have been confirmed, the survey analysis can be used as an

input to determine what are the most effective methods of presenting the data. The

information obtained throughout the literature review will be used to further

support the development of a simplified method of graphically displaying and

quantifying the discrete categories that are most likely to influence the behaviour of

potential donors.

Focus Group

The focus group provides an opportunity to qualitatively assess how the survey

analysis aligns with the feedback from a focus group and can serve as a test bed for

the development that has been undertaken as a result of the survey analysis.

Specifically, the focus group will be used to determine whether the categories that

have been developed align with the preferences of the focus group and whether the

graphically depiction of the information contained within these categories

Data Collection, Analysis and Revision

This juncture allows for a critical analysis of the information that has been obtained,

the decisions and actions that have been taken. The quantitative and qualitative

aspects have been developed in a constructive and additive manner and common

threads should be developing. If there are outliers, if omissions have been made or

if conclusions have been drawn that do not align with the assumptions, the iterative

process can be repeated. As an example, if the outcomes of the focus group

identified areas that required further analysis, an additional, targeted survey could be

developed to bridge a knowledge gap. Alternatively, the knowledge gap could be

bridged by an additional focus group.

13

Administration and Logistics

Budget

To determine a budget for the project, an hourly sell rate, or indeed opportunity

cost for the two researchers, has been estimated at a rate of $80 per hour. This

aligns with a market sell rate for a tertiary qualified researcher and is a fair

representation of opportunity cost of the two researchers.

A similar approach was assigned for determining the value for the project

supervisor. A hourly sell rate of a $220 was estimated a market rate for a business

consultant and university lecturer with good industry recognition.

All other costs, including focus group participants, survey participants and software

access costs were determined to be negligible or in-kind.

Assuming that the total period of the research project will extend for 26 weeks, and

that both research students spend twelve hours per week on the research, and

engage with the supervisor for an average of two hours per week, the total cost in

labour is estimated at $61,360.

14

Project Timeline

The project timeline detailed below at Figure 2 progresses the research and analyses through a sequential building process while allow iterative steps to refine and hone

analyses as the understanding of the subject matter and data evolves.

Figure 2 – Project Timeline

15

Project Deliverables

The Project Deliverables at Table 1 details the tangible outputs and actions of the project.

Table 1 – Project Deliverables

Deliverables Details Advanced Literature Review Refine available information relating to charity accountability and transparency

Survey Development Development of survey to provide data to support research objectives Survey Delivery Survey delivery to ensure a representative Australian population sample is achieved

Data Analysis Analysis of survey data Prioritised List of Categories Category prioritisation of information as an outcome of survey data

Graphical Representation of Category Develop a simple graphical way of communicating key information and data Focus Group Focus group to test analysis outcomes Data Analysis Clean and analyse final data to draw conclusions and develop outcomes

Report Submission Submission of final report

16

References

Centre for Corporate Public Affairs and Business Council of Australia. 2007. Corporate Community Investment in Australia https://accpa.com.au/resources.php?a=research. Cordery, Carolyn J., and Rachel F. Baskerville. "Charity transgressions, trust and

accountability." Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 22.2 (2011):

197-213.

Cortis, N., Young, A., Powell, A.. Reeve, R., Simnett, R., Ho, K., and Ramia, I. (2016) Australian

Charities Report 2015. Centre for Social Impact and Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Australia:

17-21

Grayson, David and Adrian Hodges. 2004. Corporate social opportunity: 7 steps to make corporate

social responsibility work for your business. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

McGregor-Lowndes, Myles. "The not for profit sector in Australia: Fact sheet." ACPNS Current Issues

Information Sheet 2014/4 (2014).

Nine New Charities Registered Every Day in Australia | PBA

https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2015/07/nine-new-charities-registered-every-day-in-australia/

Pascoe, Susan - http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/susan-pascoe/are-there-too-many-charities-in-

australia_b_9247624.html

Porter, Michael E and Mark R Kramer. 2011. "Creating Shared Value." Harvard Business Review.

https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value.

Prince, R.A. and K.M. File. 1995. "Philanthropic cultures of mind " New Directions for Philanthropic

Fundraising 1995 (8 ): 125-135. doi: 10.1002/pf.41219950810.

Prince, Russ Alan and Karen Maru File. 1994. "The Seven Faces of Philanthropy: A New Approach to

Cultivating Major Donors." In Nonprofit and public management series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scaife, Wendy, Alexandra Williamson, Katie McDonald and Sue Smyllie. 2012. Foundations For Giving:

How and why Australians structure their philanthropy. Brisbane: The Australian Centre for Philanthropy

and Nonprofit Studies, QUT. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/48801/.

Scaife, Wendy, Katie McDonald and Sue Smyllie. 2011. A Transformational Role: Donor and charity

perspectives on major giving in Australia. Brisbane: The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and

Nonprofit Studies, QUT. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/40336/.

Strickland, Katrina. 2014. "How Big Donations Changed Australian Philanthropy." Australian Financial

Review. http://www.afr.com/it-pro/how-big-donations-changed-australian-philanthropy-20140626-

j41zd.