Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Researched and written by: Paul Castelloe, Craig White, Jeannette Butterworth, Andrea Arias, and Molly Hemstreet Center for Participatory Change PO Box 9238 Asheville, NC 28815 USA www.cpcwnc.org

Supported by: NCGives 4601 Six Forks Rd. Suite 524 Raleigh, NC 27609 USA www.ncgives.org

Table of Contents Chapter

Page

Executive Summary

1

Chapter 1: Research Methods

6

Chapter 2: Horizontal and Vertical philanthropy: Related Concepts

19

Chapter 3: Data on Horizontal philanthropy

26

Chapter 4: Data on Vertical philanthropy

50

Chapter 5: Data on Why People Give

58

Chapter 6: Data Overviews and Summary Tables

67

Chapter 7: Interpretation of the Research Findings

69

Chapter 8: Implications of the Research Findings

80

References

94

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Executive Summary This report documents the results of a qualitative research inquiry into the patterns of giving and helping that are important to people living in Western North Carolina, in the southern United States. A major goal of this study was to understand the realities and relative importance of two forms of philanthropy or giving: horizontal philanthropy, or giving that occurs among family and friends within communities, and vertical philanthropy, giving that that occurs through institutions. The current study was a replication, on a much smaller scale, of a research study conducted by Susan Wilkinson-Maposa and her colleagues at the University of Cape Town (South Africa) Graduate School of Business. Their study was conducted across four Southern African countries and reported in The Poor Philanthropist (2006). The current study was conducted by the Center for Participatory Change, a nonprofit organization in Western North Carolina. It was conducted over a two-year period across an area of 25 rural, Appalachian counties. It was conducted in partnership with and supported by NCGives, a North Carolina organization focused on celebrating, connecting, inspiring, and growing the giving of time, talent, and treasure among women, youth, and communities of color. Core concepts: Horizontal philanthropy and vertical philanthropy. This study is an attempt to better understand giving in Western North Carolina, particularly in low-wealth and marginalized communities. We began our study from the conceptual framework outlined in The Poor Philanthropist. Our conceptualizations of philanthropy began with the conceptualizations of Wilkinson-Maposa and her colleagues; our ideas evolved slightly as we adapted their ideas to the contexts in which our research took place. The definitions that we use throughout this report are: · Horizontal philanthropy, Philanthropy of Community, and horizontal giving all refer to interpersonal giving, giving between people who know and trust each other. Most horizontal philanthropy takes place within social networks, among friends, family members, or members of the same church or grassroots group. Horizontal philanthropy is the reciprocal giving that goes on within communities. · Vertical philanthropy, Philanthropy for Community, and vertical giving all refer to institutional giving, giving between a person and an institution. Vertical philanthropy includes both gifts from an institution to people (e.g., goods, services, money) and gifts from people to an institution (e.g., donations or volunteerism). In low-wealth and marginalized communities, most vertical philanthropy is not community-based. Rather, vertical philanthropy is typically giving from an institution that is based outside of a local community. Vertical philanthropy from outside of a lowwealth community usually moves from an institution that is founded directly or indirectly on wealth and privilege to people who have relatively little wealth or privilege. Overview of the report. Chapter 1 of this report outlines the conceptual framework and research methods used in the study. Chapter 2 presents some relevant and related concepts from academic and practical fields of study. Chapter 3 presents qualitative data (quotations from 12 focus groups) on horizontal philanthropy in Western North Carolina communities. Chapter 4 presents qualitative data on vertical philanthropy. Chapter 5 presents qualitative data on why people give to each other and to organizations. Chapter 6 presents some brief summaries of the data generated by participants in the focus groups. Chapter 7 presents our interpretations of and reflections upon the data from the study. This includes a section where we reflect broadly on the findings and a section where we compare and contrast horizontal and vertical philanthropy. In Chapter 8, we outline some potential implications of the research findings. We discuss some broad assumptions that these data challenge and some implications for practice in institutions focused on giving (such as churches, grassroots groups, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and foundations). We also discuss implications for future research and make some concluding remarks. 1

The Center for Participatory Change

Overview of the study. This research study was conducted in eight counties across Western North Carolina, a rural, Appalachian area of lovely mountain landscapes and wide economic disparities. The study used qualitative research methods; the data are words, stories, and quotations rather than numbers. We conducted 12 focus groups with 122 people. There were four Latino focus groups (41 people total), two European American focus groups (25 people total), two African American focus groups (18 people total), two Hmong focus groups (20 people total), one Cherokee focus group (8 people total), and one mixed-race focus group (African American and European American - 10 people total). Two-thirds of focus group participant were women; one-third were men. There was a relatively even spread of people across all age groups, from teenagers to elders. We did not collect income data; however, we estimate that most research participants (80 – 90%) were working class or low-income. While the sample is relatively small, we are confident that the people with whom we talked represent a good cross-section – in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, age, immigration status, and geography – of working class people from across rural Western North Carolina. We followed Wilkinson-Maposa and South African colleagues (2006) in designing our research questions and our focus group process. We asked each focus group the same questions, focusing on who (who gives and receives), what (what is given and received), and why (why people help and support each other). We also asked people to prioritize the importance of giving related to the “Who?” and “What?” questions. All of the focus groups were recorded. These recordings were transcribed, and focus groups in Spanish and Hmong were translated into English. We used standard data analysis approaches from qualitative research to analyze the transcripts and bring out important and recurring themes. We then organized the data into this research report. Overview of the findings. The data from this study, the many stories that people told about the importance of giving in their lives, paint a rich and complex picture of philanthropy. This richness and complexity is presented in full in the report. For this Executive Summary, we highlight a few findings: Horizontal philanthropy is more important than vertical philanthropy. Research participants reported that in their daily lives, there is much more horizontal philanthropy (giving among people within communities) than vertical philanthropy (giving to and from institutions). They also said that horizontal giving is much more important, rich, and varied. Based on the data, we can rank forms of philanthropy in order of importance. Overall, the data from this study suggest an ordering of importance around giving, with the more important forms of giving at the top of this list and the less important forms at the bottom: · Horizontal philanthropy based in social networks emerging out of one’s family or friends; · Horizontal philanthropy based in social networks emerging out of churches or grassroots groups (e.g., giving among members of one’s church or members of grassroots groups, outside of the church’s or group’s formal work); · Vertical philanthropy to and from churches or grassroots groups (e.g., services or goods received from one’s church or a grassroots group, giving one’s money or labor to one’s church); · Vertical philanthropy received from government agencies or programs (e.g., health care and education); · Vertical philanthropy received from foundations or from nonprofit organizations that are not churches or grassroots groups. Philanthropy is rich, varied, and complex. The forms of philanthropy identified by research participants are outlined below, prioritized by participants in order of importance.

2

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

· Emotional support (e.g., being there for people, listening), · Money (both loans and gifts), · Caregiving (e.g., taking care of others’ children or people with an illness or injury), · Information / skills (e.g., information about jobs, connecting people with resources), · Labor (e.g., work around the house, help with home repair). · Food (e.g., buying or giving food when folks are hungry) · Transportation (e.g., giving rides, loaning cars) · Support around racism (e.g., helping others deal with and address racism) · Immigration support (support specific to recent immigrants) · Cultural work (e.g., preserving cultural heritage and traditions) · Housing (e.g., letting folks stay with you when they lack a place to stay) · Faith and spiritual support (e.g., supporting people as they develop their faith). Implications of the findings. As we interpreted the data from this study, we realized that there are several assumptions about philanthropy that these data challenge or contradict. A few of these are: The assumption that wealthy people are philanthropists and that people in low-wealth communities are recipients of philanthropy is misleading. Conventional definitions characterize a philanthropist as a person with wealth who gives money (donations) or time (volunteerism) out of charity or altruism to an institution that serves people in need. This definition of philanthropy has several characteristics: the giving typically occurs through a nonprofit organization, a church, or a foundation; it comes from outside of a marginalized community; there is no expectation that the receiver give back; and the giver and the receiver come from different worlds and may not even know or see each other. This form of giving is vertical philanthropy, giving from institutions to people, giving from people with wealth to people in need. Research participants rarely mentioned this form of philanthropy. Instead, people reported that by far the most important form of giving is horizontal philanthropy, giving based within social networks of relationships and trust. This form of philanthropy comes from within a community; it is based in reciprocity, co-operation, mutual obligation, mutual trust, and mutual support; and the giver and receiver have strong ties of family or friendship and are part of each others’ everyday lived worlds. And while money is an important gift passed within these networks, others gifts such as emotional support, caregiving, information, and labor are equally as important. The assumption that philanthropy is the giving of money is limiting and narrow. Many conceptual definitions of philanthropy focus on the giving of time, talent, and money. In practice, however, when people talk about philanthropy, they often fall back into using the giving of money as the default definition. The data from this study paint a much richer picture of philanthropy than even a broad definition usually includes. Money is important. Time and talent are important. But equally important are gifts of emotional support, information, labor, caregiving, advice, transportation, shelter, support around racism, and so on. Philanthropy as it is practiced in low-wealth and marginalized communities is much richer than we typically define it The assumption that the most important forms of philanthropy are planned and organized needs to be challenged. We often assume that the most important forms of philanthropy, the giving with the most significant impact, are planned and organized. We assume that the giving that really matters for people is the large-scale giving that goes on through institutions. People give through nonprofit organizations, government agencies, or community foundations, and those organizations have an organizational structure, a governing body, staff, funding sources, carefully drawn plans, set programs, and predetermined outcomes. Vertical philanthropy is resource intensive and professionalized; it takes a lot of time and money to plan and organize this form of giving. While vertical philanthropy is important, the 3

The Center for Participatory Change

data from this study suggest that naturally occurring, unstructured forms of giving are more important in low-wealth and marginalized communities. The most important forms of giving are gifts that pass organically among friends and family. In sum, the data from this study show that our most important forms of giving may be those that occur naturally as part of our daily lives; they are relatively unplanned and unorganized. The assumption that change comes primarily from outside of communities is incorrect. Vertical giving institutions such as nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and foundations often assume that the resources needed in marginalized communities are the resources that our institutions have to offer: money, food, clothing, education, or other services and forms of assistance. We may also assume that our institution is best positioned to get these resources to the people who need them. Data from this study suggest that the resources that people need do include money, but also emotional support, caregiving, information, labor, transportation, support around racism, and immigration support. Further, the data suggest that it is not our vertical giving institutions that are the most important providers of these resources; rather, it is networks of family and friends. For people participating in this study, family and friends, rather than institutions, provide emotional support, money, caregiving, information, labor, and so on. Finally, the data suggest that naturally occurring networks of mutual trust and support, especially among family and friends, are perceived as more important in providing help than professional interventions by institutions based outside of a community. Help and support come from primarily from within communities, not from outside. Conclusions. The findings from this study raise a crucial question: Might greater attention to and awareness of horizontal philanthropy be one factor informing a shift in the way that vertical philanthropy is practiced in the United States? The findings from this study show that organic and indigenous networks of giving exist within low-wealth and marginalized communities. Further, from the perspective of people living in marginalized communities, these mutual support networks are more important than help, support, or giving that comes from institutions based outside of communities. If this is true, it is important information for institutions that focus on giving, helping, supporting, or providing goods and services to low-wealth and marginalized communities. If vertical giving institutions are aware of the importance of horizontal philanthropy, then they could potentially pay more attention to horizontal giving as they plan and carry out their vertical giving work. The logic behind this idea – that an awareness of horizontal philanthropy could potentially shape the way that vertical philanthropy is carried out – is laid out in the following points: · People in low-wealth and marginalized communities give, significantly. They are philanthropists. · The giving of money is only one form of giving among many. From the perspective of people living in marginalized communities, philanthropy does not equal giving money. · Seeing philanthropy as altruistic and voluntary is misleading. Most giving occurs in the context of reciprocity and cooperation, within informal systems of mutual duty and obligation. Reciprocity is the core of most giving that occurs in low-wealth communities. · Philanthropy has a vertical dimension (vertical philanthropy, where people with wealth give altruistically to institutions that provide goods and services to people in marginalized communities) and a horizontal dimension (horizontal philanthropy, where people in marginalized communities help, support, and give to each other reciprocally through networks of family and friends). For people in marginalized communities, horizontal philanthropy is more important. · We can rethink vertical philanthropy to see people living in low-wealth and marginalized communities not as clients or recipients, but as protagonists in their own development and significant philanthropists.

4

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

· We can begin to imagine community-based systems and structures for vertical philanthropy. Ideally these would amplify and not displace the indigenous networks of mutual giving that already exist in marginalized communities. Vertical giving institutions, such as government agencies, nonprofit organizations and foundations have a spectrum of options open to them, as they apply these findings about horizontal philanthropy. Some, perhaps, will dismiss horizontal philanthropy as obvious and its impact as insignificant; this seems to us an error in analysis, stemming from a failure to see the cumulative impact of millions of instances of giving, simply because they are relatively unstructured and informal. Other institutions may apply these research findings by making incremental changes, primarily by increasing the level of community input and participation in the planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of their programs or services. Such changes could gradually help the institution recognize, support, and benefit from the existing networks of horizontal philanthropy that already exist within their client population. Finally, we believe that some organizations, agencies and foundations will take a more transformative approach to applying this research, although this entails a fundamental shift of perspective and values. If people are truly the protagonists of their own development, rather than passive clients or recipients, then their own existing systems of support and giving should be at the center of development efforts. In this framework, the role of vertical giving institutions is to understand, support and supplement the system of horizontal giving – in effect, creating an infrastructure of giving that recognizes poor people are the central driving force in improving their own communities. While such a transformation may seem difficult, we predict that those foundations, agencies and organizations that can make this shift are those that will have the greatest impact in the 21st century. We hope that the findings from this study, combined with those from the South African study, will raise awareness of the contributions made by people living in low-wealth and marginalized communities to strengthening communities and helping move people and places out of poverty. We hope that US institutions focused on philanthropy – churches, grassroots groups, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and foundations – will be more aware of and pay more attention to the indigenous networks of mutual support that exist in marginalized communities. We hope that institutions will build their work in low-wealth and marginalized communities on the realization that there are significant resources already within those communities, that people in local communities know how to get those resources where they’re most needed, and that people are doing important work already to help each other and make their communities better places to live.

5

The Center for Participatory Change

Chapter 1 Research Methods This report documents the results of a qualitative research inquiry into the patterns of giving and helping that are important to people living in Western North Carolina, in the southern United States. A major goal of this study was to understand the realities and relative importance of two forms of philanthropy or giving: horizontal philanthropy, or giving that occurs among family and friends within communities, and vertical philanthropy, giving that that occurs through institutions. The current study was a replication, on a much smaller scale, of a research study conducted by Susan Wilkinson-Maposa and her colleagues at the University of Cape Town (South Africa) Graduate School of Business. Their study was conducted across four Southern African countries and reported in The Poor Philanthropist (2006). The current study was conducted by the Center for Participatory Change, a nonprofit organization in Western North Carolina. It was conducted over a two-year period across an area of 25 rural, Appalachian counties. It was conducted in partnership with and supported by NCGives, a North Carolina organization focused on celebrating, connecting, inspiring, and growing the giving of time, talent, and treasure among women, youth, and communities of color.

1. Conceptual framework This study replicates a study in four South African countries that explored horizontal philanthropy (giving within social networks) and vertical philanthropy (giving through institutions) in low-wealth communities.

Replicating The Poor Philanthropist. The conceptual framework within which this study was planned and carried out is based on a study conducted in South Africa, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Namibia. In The Poor Philanthropist, Wilkinson-Maposa and her colleagues reported that poor people in South Africa regularly exchange tangible things like food, money, and clothes, but that they also exchange intangible things like knowledge, labor, and emotional support – and often value these exchanges more. These exchanges occurred mostly through informal networks of family, friends, and neighbors, and occasionally through networks such as grassroots groups, or more formal non-government organizations (similar to nonprofit organizations in the US). Southern Africans said that they usually help each other out of reciprocity, cooperation, duty, or obligation rather than altruism. Horizontal and vertical philanthropy: Definitions from The Poor Philanthropist. The South African study found that people in poor communities are more than recipients; they are givers as well. The South African researchers proposed that philanthropy is two-dimensional, consisting of what they call: · Horizontal philanthropy, or Philanthropy of Community, where people within a poor community give to and receive from each other through networks based on relationships and mutual support; and · Vertical philanthropy, or Philanthropy for Community, where people or organizations with wealth, usually based outside of a community, give to poor people. Throughout their study, Wilkinson-Maposa and her colleagues elaborate upon their definitions of these two forms of philanthropy. The table below summarizes their definitions. This is a table that we created, not one that appears in The Poor Philanthropist. Nevertheless, it does summarize the definitions and findings from the South African study as Wilkinson-Maposa and her colleagues present them. The table below can be compared with Table 7.1 in Chapter 7 of this report, where we summarize the findings from our study. 6

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Table 1.1 Horizontal and Vertical Philanthropy: Definitions from South Africa Definitional Concept

Horizontal Philanthropy or Philanthropy of Community

Vertical Philanthropy or Philanthropy for Community

Core definition

Self-organized and self-regulating systems of giving, help and support where people who are poor mobilize and share resources among themselves

More conventional philanthropic orthodoxy of ‘vertical’ resource flows where rich people give to the poor

What is given

Both material exchanges (food, money, and clothes) and non-material exchanges (knowledge, physical or manual assistance, moral or emotional support)

Primarily money or services

Who gives

Primarily family and friends living within a poor community

People with wealth and / or formal philanthropic organizations (foundations and non-governmental organizations) – both based outside of a poor community

Motivation for giving

Reciprocity, mutual obligation, mutual support, co-operation, shared lives

Altruism, generosity, charity, or patronage

Asset base

Assets are diverse (material and nonmaterial), focused on multiple needs at once, and have an immediate impact

Assets are narrow (money and services), focused on one or two needs at a time, and have a delayed or longterm impact

Intermediation

Giver and receiver know and trust one another, and usually have given reciprocally before

Giver and receiver generally do not know one another

Community

“Community” is defined as people with whom one has an affinity and who are viewed as accessible or likely to help

“Community” is defined as a specific geographic area

Direction and duration

Resource flows go in all directions; ‘returns’ on investment are fluid and occur whenever conditions demand it

Resource flows go in one direction; any ‘returns’ on investment are a long way off and are measured in outcomes

Rules and expectations

Giving is governed by unwritten yet well-understood rules and expectations among people in a community; these are negotiated within a framework of generally symmetric power relations

Giving is governed by legal conditions and predetermined rules and expectations set by vertical giving institutions such as foundations or nongovernmental organizations – all within a framework of asymmetric power relations

Both horizontal and vertical philanthropy exist within most communities. Wilkinson-Maposa and her colleagues are careful to point out that neither one is superior or the ideal. Their main point is that little is known about the relationship between these two forms of philanthropy and the results of their interaction. Both horizontal philanthropy and vertical philanthropy are important. When Wilkinson-Maposa and her colleagues asked 675 poor Southern Africans about giving in their communities, however, their research 7

The Center for Participatory Change

participants said clearly that it is horizontal philanthropy rather than vertical philanthropy that keeps them from sliding deeper into poverty and helps them climb out of poverty. To make this more concrete: When poor Africans were asked who is most helpful to them, they said that it is their friends, family, and neighbors – not government agencies, nonprofit organizations, or foundations. We at the Center for Participatory Change were intrigued by these findings. We wondered how people in our communities would respond to the questions they asked in Southern Africa; we wondered how things in the US might be similar or different. These questions were the spur for us to conduct this study. Horizontal and vertical philanthropy: Our definitions. We began our study from the conceptual framework that Wilkinson-Maposa and her team laid out in The Poor Philanthropist. As our study progressed, our conceptualizations of horizontal and vertical philanthropy evolved slightly to fit the contexts in which our research took place. The definitions that we use throughout this report are: · Horizontal philanthropy, Philanthropy of Community, and horizontal giving all refer to interpersonal giving, giving between people who know and trust each other. Most horizontal philanthropy takes place within social networks, among friends, family members, or members of the same church or grassroots group. Horizontal philanthropy is the reciprocal giving that goes on within communities. · Vertical philanthropy, Philanthropy for Community, and vertical giving all refer to institutional giving, giving between a person and an institution. Vertical philanthropy includes both gifts from an institution to people (e.g., goods, services, money) and gifts from people to an institution (e.g., donations or volunteerism). In low-wealth and marginalized communities, most vertical philanthropy is not community-based. Rather, vertical philanthropy is typically giving from an institution that is based outside of a local community. Vertical philanthropy from outside of a lowwealth community usually moves from an institution that is founded directly or indirectly on wealth and privilege to people who have relatively little wealth or privilege. These are the definitions and terms that we use throughout this study. Table 7.1 in Chapter 7 provides a richer definition, as does the discussion in Chapters 7 and 8.

2. Research Methods This study used qualitative research methods, specifically focus groups, to explore horizontal and vertical philanthropy in the United States.

Our main goal in this study was to replicate the South African study on giving and to understand the relationships between horizontal and vertical philanthropy in Western North Carolina, in the United States. We also wanted to understand the relative importance of these types of giving for people’s daily lives. Qualitative research methods. The research design for this study was based on qualitative research methods. In qualitative research, data are quotations from interviews or focus groups, observations, or documents produced by people or organizations. Qualitative research has several characteristics: it is mostly process focused; data are collected through fieldwork rather than questionnaires or surveys; the research is often descriptive rather than predictive; the process is inductive rather than deductive; and studies often focus on the particular rather than the general. In this study, the data are direct quotations from 12 focus groups (which included a total of 122 people) focusing on people’s experiences around giving and support. Qualitative data – which are words, stories, observations, or written documents – differ from quantitative data, which are typically numbers. The way 8

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

the data are gathered differs too: In qualitative research, the researcher gathers data by conversing with people, observing things going on, and reading documents; in quantitative research, the researcher gathers data through surveys, questionnaires, or other ways of using numbers to represent ideas. The assumptions behind qualitative research are also different from those behind quantitative research. Qualitative research is usually based on inductive inquiry, whereas quantitative research is usually based on deductive inquiry. In deductive inquiry, which is most often quantitative, the researcher generally has some specific idea (a theory or hypothesis) about what she is looking for before she goes into the research, and she sets up her research to prove or disprove her idea. In inductive inquiry, which is more typically qualitative, the researcher goes into a study without a clear understanding of what she might find; the researcher explores openly, and then begins to make sense of the findings only after she begins collecting and analyzing the data. In some ways, our study was not completely inductive. We were replicating a study that had resulted in certain findings (outlined above). While we were curious about whether or not we would come up with the same findings, and we had some mild expectations that we might, we did not want to limit our research by looking only for the findings that came out of the South African study. Instead, we decided to replicate the research process used in South Africa, and follow the South African researchers in letting the systems of understanding, ideas, ways of making meaning, and findings emerge organically from our analysis of the focus group conversations. There are several underlying themes of the qualitative research approach (Patton, 1990); these themes, which served as the foundation of this research project, include the following: · Naturalistic inquiry: researchers study everyday, real-world issues as they naturally unfold; · Inductive analysis: researchers discover important concepts from the data rather than testing theoretically derived (or deductive) hypotheses; · Holistic perspective: researchers focus on a whole, on a complex interrelated system, rather than on discrete variables thought to exist in linear, cause-and-effect relationships; · Qualitative data: researchers present thick description based on data collected through interviews, participant-observation, and document review; · Personal contact and insight: researchers develop relationships with the researched; the researcher’s personal experiences are considered data in the inquiry; · Attention to process: researchers focus on dynamic change; · Unique case orientation: researchers’ first level of inquiry is being true to the unique case studied; · Context sensitivity: social, economic, and cultural contexts are important aspects of the study; · Empathetic neutrality: researchers reject claims to objectivity, taking instead a neutral and nonjudgmental stance to data; · Design flexibility: researchers are not locked into rigid designs that prevent responsiveness and discovery. Research organization. The research generally followed the design used by Wilkinson-Maposa and her research team at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. Our study was coordinated by Paul Castelloe of the Center for Participatory Change, who has a Ph.D. in Social Work from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and has been conducting qualitative research and evaluation projects for 15 years. The staff at the Center for Participatory Change worked with Paul to develop and frame the research methods and questions. The Center for Participatory Change is a grassroots support organization. We help strengthen grassroots leaders, groups, and networks working on racial and economic justice issues across 25 counties in Western North Carolina. To organize the focus groups, we 9

The Center for Participatory Change

called upon some of our grassroots partners. We asked certain people we work with to pull together eight to ten people for a conversation about giving. More detail on the characteristics of the focus groups can be found below. Core questions. We used generally the same questions that the South African researchers used. In the South African study, they asked five questions: 1. What is help? 2. Who do you help and who helps you? 3. What forms of help are used and for what purpose? 4. Why do you help? 5. Has help changed over time? We did adapt these questions somewhat. We decided not to ask the first question, assuming that the definition of help and support would emerge through the conversations. We also included a question around the impacts of giving, and we dropped the last question in the South Africa study. Finally, while we kept the spirit of questions 2, 3, and 4 above, we did use different language. We asked each group four questions: 1. Who helps you, who do you help? Who gives to you and who do you give to? Who do you work with to make things better or keep things from getting worse? 2. What sorts of things are you doing with others (helping others, getting help from others, working with others) to make things better or keep things from getting worse? 3. Why do you help, give to, support, or work with other people as they try to make things better or keep things from getting worse? 4. What effects do all the things we’ve talked about have on your life? In many cases, focus groups spent most of their time and energy on the first two questions. We often ran out of time to address questions 3 and 4. We have a sufficient amount data on question 3, but very little on question 4. Focus group protocol. All data were collected through a focus group methodology. The protocol we used was based on the protocol used in the South African study, but we adapted the process slightly. The protocol we used had five major sections: 1. Who? We facilitated a process where research participants called out categories of who helps and who they help (e.g., family, friends, churches, government agencies). As participants called out categories, we made a list on a flip chart of the various categories related to the question, “Who helps?” At this point we were trying to get answers to the questions: Who are the folks who help you make things better or keep things from getting worse? Who helps you, or who gives to you? Who do you help, or who do you give to? Who do you work with to make things better? Once we had heard people’s thoughts related to the “who” question and recorded them on a flip chart, we asked participants to prioritize among these categories. We asked participants to pick (in their head) the top three to five most important categories that we had talked about. Then we went around the room and had folks raise their hand if a particular category was one of their top three to five. 2. What? We then went through a similar process for the “what” question. We asked research participants to call out categories of the kinds of help, support, and giving that they either give or receive 10

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

(e.g., money, emotional support, labor, information, and so on). We were trying to get answers to the question: What are the things you’re doing with these folks to make things better or keep things from getting worse? Once we had heard people’s thoughts related to the “what” question and recorded them on a flip chart, we asked participants to prioritize among these categories. We asked participants to pick (in their head) the top three to five most important categories that we had talked about. Then we went around the room and had folks raise their hand if a particular category was one of their top three to five. 3. Stories related to “Who” and “What”. We then invited research participants to share stories, personal experiences, perceptions, and examples related to any of the data captured on the flip chart sheets. This was a typical focus group conversation, using the sheets as a jumping off point. 4. Why? When we had time, we asked research participants to talk about the reasons why they give, help, or work with others to make things better or keep things from getting worse. This was a typical focus group conversation. 5. So What? When we had time, we asked people to talk about the effects of giving and helping on their lives. This was a typical focus group conversation. We rarely had time to address this question.

3. Data analysis Data in this study were analyzed using thematic coding, a standard approach to qualitative data analysis.

We used several steps to make sense of the data we collected in these focus groups: · Data capture and assembly: We made audio recordings of all focus groups in participants’ first language (e.g., Spanish, Hmong, or English). We kept any notes from flip charts made by focus group facilitators. We transcribed the audio recordings and translated all transcriptions into English. · Data analysis: Using standard qualitative data analysis approaches (e.g., thematic coding, see below), we analyzed the data collected. · Interpretation: We made sense of the major themes that emerged from the data and linked the major findings to relevant fields of study (e.g., research, theoretical, and practice-focused fields of study related to horizontal and vertical philanthropy). Data analysis: Overview. As outlined in a central book on qualitative research (Miles & Huberman, 1994), the basic processes of qualitative data analysis are: (1) Affixing codes to a set of field notes drawn from observations or interviews; (2) Noting reflections or other remarks in the margin; (3) Sorting and shifting through these materials to identify similar phrases, relationships between variables, patterns, themes, distinct differences between subgroups, and common sequences; (4) Isolating these patterns and processes, commonalties and differences, and taking them out to the field in the next wave of data collection; (5) Gradually elaborating a small set of generalizations that cover the consistencies discerned in the data; (6) Confronting the generalizations with a formalized body of knowledge in the form of constructs or theories.

11

The Center for Participatory Change

These general steps were followed in the analysis for this research. Data analysis strategy: Coding. The data analysis for this study was an iterative process, which began as soon as we began to collect data. The data analysis was based on coding. A central book on qualitative data analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) states: “Coding is analysis. To review a set of field notes, transcribed or synthesized, and to dissect them meaningfully while keeping the relations between the parts intact, is the stuff of analysis” (p. 56). The process of coding is based on the use of codes: “Codes are tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study. Codes are usually attached to ‘chunks’ of varying size -- words, phrases, sentences, or whole paragraphs, connected or unconnected to a particular setting” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 56). These codes are used to develop the findings and conclusions of the study: “Codes are used to retrieve and organize the chunks mentioned earlier. The organizing part will entail some system for categorizing the various chunks, so the researcher can quickly find, pull out, and cluster the segments relating to a particular research question, hypothesis, construct, or theme” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 57). A concrete example may be useful. Suppose, for example, that when reading the transcript (the typed record made from an audio tape) of a focus group with a group of African Americans, there are several comments about how people give and receive money through family networks. We would code these passages (by simply jotting a note or code in the margin of the transcript) “Who – Family” and “What – Money” to signify what is given (money) and who gives or receives it (family members). Suppose we later read the transcript of a focus group with Latinos, and there are also several comments about how people give and receive money through family networks. The process through which giving occurs is different among Latinos (because they are primarily sending money back to Mexico, whereas African Americans are giving to family members locally), but we still code these passages “Who – Family” and “What – Money.” Later, as we develop this report, we pull out all of the quotations that had been coded “Who – Family” and “What – Money,” reflect on these quotations and their interconnections, and place the most relevant quotations in the section of the report that deals with giving within families. We then interpret or make sense of these quotations. Coding refers to this process of labeling chunks of data so that one can then pull out the chunks that relate to a particular issue, analyze their interconnections, place relevant chunks together in a report, and interpret them for the reader. 4. Site selection and sample frame The sample for this study included 122 people in Western North Carolina, USA. The sample was mixed in terms of race / ethnicity and age. Two-thirds of research participants were women. Most research participants were working class.

Site selection. The site for this research is Western North Carolina, USA, a rural area of stirring Appalachian landscapes and disheartening economic disparities. The area is not large: around 200 miles from east to west (maybe a four-hour drive) and around 120 miles from north to south (maybe a threehour drive). We selected this region because this is the region in which we live and work. The Center for Participatory Change (CPC), the organization that conducted this study, is a nonprofit organization that has been supporting grassroots efforts around racial and economic justice in Western North Carolina since 2000. Concretely, CPC has provided ongoing, hands-on support to grassroots leaders (e.g., training, hands-on leadership development, coaching), grassroots groups (e.g., starting grassroots groups, maintaining participation, strategic planning, fundraising support, board development), and grassroots networks (e.g., starting grassroots networks, building collective power, systems and policy change). Since we had worked for nearly 10 years with around 150 grassroots groups and networks, it was natural to conduct this study in Western North Carolina using our existing networks.

12

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Sample characteristics. To organize the 12 focus groups, we called upon some of our grassroots partners. We asked different people that we work with regularly to pull together eight to ten people for a conversation about giving. The organizers of the focus groups included seven grassroots leaders or board members within grassroots groups (two African American groups, two Hmong groups, one Cherokee group, one Latino group, and one African American / European American group), two staff members at grassroots Latino centers, a staff member at a family resource center, a staff member at a rural child care resource and referral center, a regional Catholic Hispanic Ministries liaison, and a staff member at the Center for Participatory Change. We told each person organizing a focus group that the focus group did not need to be based in any grassroots group they are a part of; further, we said that it was better if it wasn’t based in a grassroots group, because we wanted to talk with a broad range of people. We did say that we would like racially and ethnically homogenous groups, if possible, so that we could gain an understanding of any similarities and differences in giving across race and ethnicity. Other than that as guidance, we left the selection of participants for the focus groups up to our grassroots partners, because we wanted the focus group participants to emerge from their social networks. We paid each focus group organizer $150 to reimburse their time in organizing the focus group, to recognize that it was their social networks and social capital (rather than ours) that would get people to the focus group, and to reimburse the cost of any food or drink at the focus group. The focus group organizer contacted all of the participants, arranged the site of the focus group, and bought any refreshments. Most focus groups were a mix of the organizer’s social networks: members of grassroots groups, church congregations, family members, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, and so on. In each focus group, researchers knew a few people from the previous work of the Center for Participatory Change (CPC), but most people were not known to CPC and did not know about CPC. We paid each focus group participant $30 to reimburse their time. Focus group characteristics. The 12 focus groups consisted of 122 people. The focus groups can be broken down according to the following characteristics: Race / ethnicity. The focus groups had the following characteristics related to race and ethnicity: · Four Latino focus groups (41 people total) · Two European American focus groups (25 people total) · Two Hmong focus groups (20 people total) · Two African American focus groups (18 people total) · One Cherokee focus group (8 people total) · One mixed race (African American and European American) focus group (10 people total) We conducted two extra Latino focus groups because the first two were conducted early in the process and had incomplete data. The mixed race focus group was the first one conducted, and the instructions to the focus group organizer requesting a racially homogenous group were unclear. We had hoped to conduct two Cherokee focus groups, but this proved to be challenging for various logistical reasons. Size. We asked focus group organizers to bring together between 8 and 10 focus group participants. They generally invited more than that, in case people didn’t come. The smallest focus group was 8 people; the largest was 14. Ten of the twelve focus groups had between 8 and 10 participants. Location. Focus groups took place in eight counties (including an Indian reservation) across Western North Carolina. The counties (and numbers of focus groups in each county) were: Buncombe (3 focus groups), Macon (2), Catawba (2), Henderson (1), Haywood (1), Madison (1), Avery (1), and the Eastern 13

The Center for Participatory Change

Band of Cherokee Indians (1). Seven focus groups took place in rural areas. Five of the focus groups took place in small urban areas (two focus groups in Hickory (population around 40,000) and three in Asheville (population around 73,000)). The actual locations of focus groups included churches, the gathering spaces of grassroots groups, restaurants, people’s homes, a public housing community center, and a Cooperative Extension agricultural center. Sample characteristics. The 122 people participating in the 12 focus groups had the following characteristics. Race / ethnicity. · 41 Latinos (34% of all research participants) · 32 European Americans (26% of all research participants) · 21 African Americans (17% of all research participants) · 20 Hmong (16% of all research participants) · 8 Cherokee (7% of all research participants) Gender. · 80 women (66% of all research participants) · 42 men (34% of all research participants) Estimated Age. This was based on researchers’ on-the-spot estimates of participants’ age; we did not ask participants their age. · 33 participants aged 25 and under (27% of all research participants) · 25 participants aged 26 to 35 (20% of all research participants) · 18 participants aged 36 to 45 (15% of all research participants) · 22 participants aged 46 to 55 (18% of all research participants) · 24 participants aged 56 and over (20% of all research participants) Income level. Although we did not collect data on socioeconomic status, we estimate (based on what we know of the focus group organizers and the communities in which the focus groups took place) that most research participants (we estimate between 80% and 90%) were working class or low-income. Limitations of our research sample. We realize that our research sample is not completely representative of our region. There are people (e.g., people struggling with disabilities, health or mental health issues, or homelessness) whose voices are not represented in this study, and we realize that our findings would have looked different had they been included. We talked with 120 people, not 1,200. However, we are confident that the people we talked with represent a good cross-section – in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, age, immigration status, and geography – of working class folks from across rural Western North Carolina. Also, our sample may be composed largely of people who are enmeshed deeply in social networks of some sort: networks of family, friends, grassroots groups, churches, and so on. We selected our sample through social networks, by using our social networks and asking focus group organizers to bring groups together based on their social networks (their friends and family, basically). Since the sampling was based on social networks, it may have skewed our results. Research participants reported that horizontal 14

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

philanthropy (giving within social networks) was particularly important in their lives, noticeably more important than vertical philanthropy (giving from outside institutions). If we had selected a different group of working class people in Western North Carolina – people receiving services from a county Department of Social Services or people who are socially isolated and unconnected to any institution – we may have had different findings. We were purposeful when we decided to base our sample on people’s friends, family, and social networks. Still, this approach to sample selection may admittedly skew our results towards an emphasis on horizontal philanthropy. 5. Researchers’ roles The study was conducted by the Center for Participatory Change, a nonprofit organization that had certain biases about the study and work-based connections to many of the focus group organizers.

In qualitative research, the researcher enters the lives of research participants (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). This can vary from long-term, relatively intense relationships between researcher and participants (as in an ethnographic study) to relatively short-term and brief relationships (as in a series of interviews or focus groups with different people). Both technical issues and interpersonal issues are relevant for clarifying the researcher’s roles in a qualitative study. Technical issues (e.g., general roles, negotiating entry, and efficiency) refer to the way that the researcher deploys him or herself, her time, and her resources, and how she negotiates entry into the setting. Interpersonal issues (e.g., personal biases, reciprocity, and ethics) refer to the researcher’s personal and interpersonal realities, characteristics, or interactions. Researcher’s general roles. There are several general roles that qualitative researchers can play as they collect data (Patton, 1990). These role descriptions address questions such as the following: In our research in Western North Carolina, were we more participants or observers in what we studied? Did we reveal to participants that we were conducting a study, or keep our motives hidden? Did we spend a lot of time in Western North Carolina intensively collecting data, or collect our data in a few relatively short visits? Was the focus of our research specific or diffuse? In response to the first question, staff members at the Center for Participatory Change (CPC) have definitely been participants in the larger grassroots-driven effort to bring about racial and economic justice in Western North Carolina. Through this work, we have developed the relationships that enabled us to conduct this study; specifically, this work was the basis for our relationships with 11 of 12 focus group organizers. All of the focus group organizers were our professional colleagues except for one, who was referred to us by a professional colleague. However, the people we asked about horizontal and vertical philanthropy were mostly people outside of our organization. Most of the participants in the various focus groups were people that we did not know at all or did not know well. Also, CPC staff did not participate in this study by answering the questions about giving and helping; rather, we acted as researchers. There was one exception: One CPC staff person (a Latina) organized a focus group of her friends and acquaintances, and she both facilitated and participated in this focus group. In response to the second question, we revealed clearly and transparently to all research participants that we were conducting a study of giving in Western North Carolina communities. Many research participants did not necessarily understand the purpose of the study before arriving at a focus group. Many simply came to the focus group because a friend or family member asked them to. But when we began each focus group, we clearly described the study and allowed time for questions about the study and its larger goals. In response to the third question, data were collected between November 4, 2007 and March 12, 2008. All CPC staff were living and working in Western North Carolina throughout the data collection (and indeed, the entire study). 15

The Center for Participatory Change

In response to the fourth question, our research questions focused specifically on horizontal philanthropy and vertical philanthropy. And, as mentioned, the focus group questions and process were based on the South Africa study of giving outlined above. Negotiating entry. Negotiating entry refers to how a researcher gains sanction to enter a setting and conduct research. Negotiating entry in this case was based on years of trust building and relationship building, particularly with most of the focus group organizers. The researchers (staff at the Center for Participatory Change) had been working in Western North Carolina for many years. Researchers had been working side-by-side with 11 of the 12 focus group organizers. To negotiate entry, we simply had to ask focus group organizers for a favor (which was reimbursed by $150) – we just asked people we work with regularly to organize a focus group of people they know and respect. They were glad to help, because we had helped them in their work and we had become friends. The focus group participants came to the focus groups largely through their connections with the focus group organizers, not through their connections with CPC. Efficiency. Efficiency refers to the researcher’s use of time and resources (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). As mentioned, we collected data between November 2007 and March 2008. We paid each focus group organizer $150 for their time and expenses in organizing the focus group, and we paid each focus group participant $30 for their time. Restricting data collection to 12 focus groups conducted over five months ensured that our time and funding were used efficiently. Researchers’ personal biases. Researchers’ personal biases are considered important in qualitative research (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). In this study, the researchers’ perceptions and understandings related to giving have been shaped by our personal experiences. These experiences resulted in biases as we interpreted the data that we collected. All research, both quantitative and qualitative, is biased. It is important to name and heed these biases, rather than allow them to operate unnamed and unheeded throughout a study. Our biases have shaped the development and design of this study from the beginning. First, the Center for Participatory Change (CPC) has been involved in work around giving since 2002. CPC participated in a statewide effort in North Carolina called the Discovery Alliance. The Discovery Alliance was an attempt to bring together diverse groups of people to gather knowledge and stimulate the development of innovative strategies that increase the giving of time, talent, and money. In 2005, CPC began participating in NCGives, another statewide partnership to increase the giving of time, talent, and money in North Carolina communities, particularly among women, youth, and communities of color. CPC has received funding from NCGives since 2005; NCGives funded this research (and is carrying out related research on giving in North Carolina). Over the past five or so years, CPC has come to see our work as focusing on amplifying the giving that occurs through and within grassroots groups, particularly the giving of time and talent. We have come to realize that this form of giving is crucial for transforming low-wealth and marginalized communities. In sum, our experiences trying to amplify giving in Western North Carolina and across our state have shaped the biases we bring to this study. Our understanding of giving and philanthropy has also shaped the biases we bring to this study. Before our involvement in the Discovery Alliance and NCGives, we shared the typical understanding of philanthropy as the province of wealthy individuals and organizations giving money to the ‘less fortunate.’ Our participation in the Discovery Alliance and NCGives brought to us an expanded definition of giving or philanthropy: Philanthropy is the giving of time, talent, and money for the common good. Furthermore, we came to see the giving of time and talent as being as important as the giving of money. This definition of philanthropy radically changed our views on giving. If giving time and talent counts as much as giving money, then we are all philanthropists, and grassroots organizations are philanthropic institutions. We began to see grassroots groups as one of the major vessels, containers, or 16

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

structures through which giving occurs in rural low-wealth and marginalized communities. This form of giving, often taken for granted, is an essential element of philanthropy for social change. Thus we came to this study with a particular interest in giving, a more specific interest in the importance of giving time and talent, and a professional focus on amplifying the giving that occurs organically through and within grassroots groups. Finally, our interest in the study conducted in South Africa, and our replication of this study, can also be seen as a bias. As mentioned, our conceptual framework and research design is an attempt to replicate a study conducted by Susan Wilkinson-Maposa and her team (2006) at the University of Cape Town (South Africa) Graduate School of Business. In this study, poor South Africans reported that it is horizontal philanthropy (giving from within their social networks) rather than vertical philanthropy (giving from outside institutions) that keeps them from sliding deeper into poverty and helps them climb out of poverty. We wanted to replicate this study in Western North Carolina to see if we would find similar results. To some degree, we hypothesized that we would find similar results in the US. Our interest in the South Africa study, in their concept of horizontal philanthropy and their findings, also biased our study. In sum, there are several biases that shaped our research design, data collection, interpretation, and reporting. These are: · We came to this study with a longstanding interest in amplifying giving, particularly the giving of time and talent; · We came to this study with a particular interest in the giving of time and talent that occurs through grassroots groups; · We came to this study specifically to replicate the South Africa study on giving in our local area; · We came to this study with a particular interest in horizontal philanthropy, as conceptualized in the South Africa study; · We had some expectations that we would find similar results to the South Africa study when we replicated their research design. Reciprocity. Many people in Western North Carolina gave their time, thought, and energy to this research project. In qualitative research, it is important that researchers think carefully about how to reciprocate (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). In this study, reciprocity took several forms. Concretely, the Center for Participatory Change paid focus group organizers $150 for their time and for refreshments; we paid focus group participants $30 for their time. We also promised to send all research participants a summary of the report in either English or Spanish. More generally, 11 of the 12 focus group organizers were people that CPC has partnered with in some meaningful way for a long time, and our request to organize a focus group was rooted in a long, rich web of reciprocity that developed as we worked side-byside with these people for racial and economic justice across the region. Ethics. In qualitative research, ethical considerations are both generic and specific (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). In terms of generic ethical considerations, we ensured anonymity in all data reporting by changing all personal and place names when people and places are mentioned. Additional ethical considerations warranted that we specify the research objectives and procedures verbally so that they were clearly understood by research participants, and that we collect no data without permission from participants. In terms of specific ethical considerations, we believe that this research respected the rights, needs, hopes, and values of research participants. Giving was a topic that people were glad to talk about. After most focus groups, several people made some comment like, “I didn’t know what we were doing here tonight or why I was coming, but this was a great conversation. I really enjoyed it.”

17

The Center for Participatory Change

6. Soundness in qualitative research This study used standard approaches from qualitative research to ensure the soundness or trustworthiness of the data and interpretations.

Terms from experimental and quasi-experimental research such as validity, reliability, and objectivity are not particularly relevant to qualitative research (Lather, 1991; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1995). Nonetheless, qualitative researchers are concerned with the soundness, trustworthiness, or “truth value” of their data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Maxwell, 1996). Qualitative researchers outline several ways of ensuring soundness or trustworthiness in qualitative research. In this study, these included the following (Miles & Huberman,1994; Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Maxwell, 1996): y Stating our intentions as researchers clearly in all focus groups (i.e., making it clear to all research participants that we were acting as researchers, and what we would do with the data we were collecting); y Repeatedly checking the data for – and addressing – contrasting cases, extreme cases, outliers, and negative evidence or rival hypotheses (i.e., searching for data that were surprising or counteracted the findings that emerged from the study); y Triangulation of data – confirming findings by looking for corroboration in other data sources (e.g., other focus groups), other methods (e.g., supplementing focus group data with data from the South Africa study), or theory (e.g., supplementing focus group data with theoretical or applied writing on related issues); y Member checks (i.e., getting feedback from research participants about the findings from the study, and our interpretation of the data); y Long-term and repeated observation and data collection (i.e., data were collected in 12 focus groups over five months); y Clarification of researcher biases (i.e., we have clarified the biases that we bring to this research, thus making them explicit for the reader).

18

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Chapter 2 Horizontal and Vertical Philanthropy: Related Concepts This section provides brief overviews of several concepts that are related to horizontal philanthropy (giving within social networks) and vertical philanthropy (giving based in institutions). Horizontal philanthropy and vertical philanthropy are new terms; they were introduced by Susan Wilkinson-Maposa and her research team in The Poor Philanthropist (2006). A Google search of the internet for terms such as “horizontal philanthropy” and “vertical philanthropy” brings forth links to the work of the South African researchers and to the early stages of our replication of their work. Despite the novelty of these terms, however, the practices of horizontal and vertical philanthropy have been around for a long time. Further, these concepts have clear links to related fields of study, both theoretical and applied. The four sections below briefly introduce some areas where horizontal and vertical philanthropy can be linked to other concepts. Three of the four sections focus on horizontal philanthropy. The first section provides an overview of three theoretical concepts, taken largely from sociology, that are related to horizontal philanthropy: social support, social networks, and social capital. The second section reviews several concepts from several applied or practical fields that relate to horizontal philanthropy: asset-based community development, solidarity economics, service learning, and servant leadership. The third section reviews several broad-scale or macro-level research efforts that relate to horizontal philanthropy: national- and international-level research on unpaid work and remittances. The final section reviews concepts related to vertical philanthropy: charity, philanthropy, and the government and nonprofit sectors. Horizontal philanthropy: Related theoretical concepts There are several theoretical concepts from academic fields, particularly sociology, that relate to horizontal philanthropy, including social support, social networks, and social capital.

Social support. Social support refers to the types of help or assistance that we receive from others. Researchers have identified three major types of social support (Brugha, 2007; Cohen, Underwood, & Gottleib, 2000; Uchino, 2004). Emotional support refers to the intangible things we do for each other to show care or love, such as listening, talking through problems, or providing encouragement. Instrumental support refers to more tangible forms of helping, like help with childcare, helping around the house, loaning money, or providing rides. Informational support refers to forms of help that people provide when they share information, such as letting people know about available jobs or other opportunities. Social support has been found to vary according to socioeconomic status, with lower-income people reporting less social support (Cohen, Underwood, & Gottleib, 2000). One study found that reciprocity is crucial for social support: When you give social support to others, you are much more likely to receive support back, often in the form you gave it but also in other forms (Plickert, Cote, & Wellman, 2007). Psychological well-being is strongly associated with social support; people who enjoy greater social support are at significantly lower risk of depression and psychological distress (Brugha, 2007). Social support is also associated (although less strongly and less clearly) with physical health and well-being (Uchino, 2004). The concept of social support – emotional, instrumental, and informational support – relates clearly to the types of giving identified in this study. All of the giving that is reported in this study can be seen as social support. Further, participants in this study clearly expressed the benefits of these forms of support; this fits generally with the literature on the benefits of social support outlined above. The focus in this study is not on health or mental health, but the benefits of social support are nonetheless clear in this study. Finally, the importance of reciprocity is a thread that runs throughout this study, as in the literature on social support. 19

The Center for Participatory Change

Social networks. Social networks refer to structures or webs of people or groups that are interconnected through relationships based on friendship, family relations, values, visions, ideas, money, or some other factor (Jackson, 2008; Knoke & Yang, 2007; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). At its simplest level, a social network is a web of interrelationships made up of individuals (called nodes) and the linkages among them (called ties). Tangible or intangible resources flow through these ties or linkages. Social networks are webs of interdependence. Social network researchers create maps of these webs of interdependence, focusing on relationships among members of a network rather than on the members themselves. Social networks can be local and relatively simple, like a family network, a network of friends, or networks among members of the same church. Social networks can also be broad and complex, consisting of webs of interpersonal or inter-organizational relationships that reach up to national or international levels. Finally, social networks have also been found to be crucial in broad efforts to bring about social change, particularly in social movements (Diani & McAdam, 2003). Applied to this study, social networks are the webs of relationships through which giving occurs. Each participant in this study has multiple social networks – the family members, church members, friends, and acquaintances to which they are tied. It is through these social networks that the various forms of giving described in the study occur. Social networks are particularly important for horizontal philanthropy, the giving that occurs among people within a community. Indeed, at a local or micro level, social networks can be seen as the various structures or webs through which horizontal philanthropy occurs. Social capital. Social capital is defined many different ways, and there is no agreement on which definition is best. One definition builds directly from the conceptualization of social networks outlined above: Social capital is made up of the tangible and intangible resources that flow among individuals or groups through the ties or linkages that make up social networks (Lin & Erickson, 2008). According to this definition, social capital simply refers to the resources embedded in and traveling through social networks. Capital is conceptualized as valued resources that bring returns to people or groups. Social capital refers to the “returns” one gets when one “invests” in social relationships; one invests in social relationships (by providing social support), and one gets something (some form of social support) in return. Individuals do not and cannot posses these forms of capital; rather, they are received only through webs of relationships and the linkages among people. According to this definition of social capital, people invest in relationships with others, and through these relationships they gain access to a rich and diverse set of tangible and intangible resources. Other definitions of social capital (Bourdieu, 1983; Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1995) are broader, defining social capital generally as the features of social networks, such as trust and norms, as well as the resources that flow through social networks. These definitions have become popular among wider audiences in the US; however, the definition above has a rich scholarly history in sociology and fits well the conceptual framework of this study. The concept of social capital in some ways integrates the two concepts above, social support and social networks. For the purposes of this study, social capital can be seen as the various forms of giving (or social support) that flow among members of social networks. The people participating in this study are clearly embedded in networks of family members, friends and acquaintances, church members, and members of grassroots groups. The various forms of giving and receiving that occur through these social networks can be seen as forms of social capital. Money, food, emotional support, caregiving, information, labor, transportation, support around racism or immigration: All of these forms of social support are given and received continually through the social networks in which people are embedded. When asked why they give, participants in this study emphasized reciprocity, co-operation, and mutual obligation. This relates clearly to the definition of social capital above.

20

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Horizontal philanthropy: Related practical approaches There are several concepts from professional fields that relate to horizontal philanthropy, including asset-based community development, solidarity economics, service learning, and servant leadership.

Asset-based community development. Asset-based community development is an US-based approach to improving communities put forth by John Kretzmann and John McKnight (1993). The basic premise is that community improvement efforts start not from what is wrong with a community (e.g., crime, child abuse, inadequate housing, unemployment, drug abuse), but what is right (e.g., individual people’s skills and talents, churches and grassroots groups, other institutional resources). This approach looks within a community for the assets that already exist, and taps into those assets to make things better. Using the concepts above, asset-based community development draws upon the social support, social networks, and social capital that already exist in a community to bring about positive change in that community. Assetbased community development builds community improvement efforts on the naturally occurring instances of horizontal philanthropy that exist within every community, no matter how economically or socially distressed. Solidarity economics. Solidarity economics is a concept and practice approach that emerged from the Global South, particularly Latin America, and spread throughout the world through the World Social Forum (Allard & Mattaei, 2008; Brazilian Forum of Solidarity Economy, 2006; Gibson-Graham, 2006; Miller, 2004, 2006). Solidarity economics focuses on questions such as, “How do people in low-wealth communities work with each other to move out of poverty? What are the networks of mutual help and support in people’s everyday lives that help them move out of poverty?” Solidarity economics focuses on the broad range of things that people do in their everyday lives as they struggle to both maintain their current level of economic well-being (i.e., struggle to get by) and struggle to move themselves and their families out of poverty (i.e., struggle to get ahead). Some examples: People share food, childcare, and meals; they loan each other money with no interest; they form co-operatives or worker-owned businesses to collectively earn income; they trade or barter skills or things; they grow their own food; they share housing; they form community land trusts to collectively own and manage land and preserve affordable housing; they carpool and give each other rides; they buy goods together in bulk and share them; they form pools of money that contributors can borrow from when they need to; they pool their money, time, and talent for religious and cultural festivals and other life events. All of these examples fall under solidarity economics, and it is these sorts of efforts that solidarity economics views as important for moving people out of poverty. Most of these examples of solidarity economics are also examples of horizontal philanthropy. Solidarity economics can be seen as an approach to economics that is built largely upon the everyday realities of horizontal philanthropy in marginalized communities. Service learning. Service learning has emerged from work among educators in the US. According to the National Service Learning Clearinghouse (www.servicelearning.org), service learning “is a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities.” Service learning is now a large movement in the US, touching educational institutions from preschool to post-graduate. Since it has become so broad, the practice of service learning is conceptualized many different ways. An early conceptualization outlines three core principles: (1) those being served control the services provided; (2) those being served become better able to serve and be served by their own actions; (3) those who serve also are the learners and have significant control over what is expected to be learned (Sigmon, 1979). A later definition echoes aspects of this one: “Service learning frames the recriprocity issue, that all the partners in the experience are servers and served and all are teachers and learners” (Sigmon, 1994). In these conceptualizations of service learning, we have an institutionalized form of giving that defines itself by emphasizing the reciprocity and mutuality at the heart of horizontal philanthropy. In some ways, service learning is an attempt to bring the reciprocity and relationships at the heart of horizontal philanthropy into a form of vertical or institutionalized philanthropy. 21

The Center for Participatory Change

Servant leadership. This emphasis on reciprocity echoes Robert Greenleaf’s (1977) conceptualization of servant leadership. Servant leadership blends service and leadership in a way similar to the way that service learning blends service and learning. According to Greenleaf, servant leadership starts with a conscious commitment to service, out of which comes a vision of leading. This is different from being a leader first, with its focus on power or material possessions. Servant leadership becomes evident when one answers the following questions about one’s relations with others: “Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?” (Greenleaf, 1977). Greenleaf (1976) emphasizes reciprocity as central in service or giving, and states that service or giving can be problematic if not based on mutual giving and receiving. Non-reciprocal giving, especially when coupled with wealth or power, is often based on arrogance, on assumptions of superiority and control on the part of the giver. Non-reciprocal giving is based in an assumption of virtue on the part of the giver, but it is accompanied by a series of immoral beliefs related to wanting to be a giver, wanting to be known as a giver, wanting to dictate how the giving occurs, wanting to paternalize and manipulate, and wanting to feel non-needy and superior. Reciprocal giving, in contrast, carries with it the expectation that the giver will also receive; the act of receiving (of expressing need to others) is an act of humility, an act that keeps relationships of power between people relatively balanced. According to Greenleaf, giving, when coupled with wealth or power, is often based in arrogance; receiving is based in humility. This emphasis on reciprocity is the foundation of horizontal philanthropy; indeed, research participants cite reciprocity as the main reason behind their giving. Recognizing and valuing horizontal philanthropy There are several concepts from various macro-level research efforts that relate to horizontal philanthropy; these include research on recognizing and valuing both unpaid work and remittances.

Recognizing unpaid giving work. There is a great deal of research, much of it carried out by national governments, on understanding all of the different kinds of work (both paid and unpaid) that people do. A by-product of this research is that there are now solid data on the various forms of unpaid work people do; as a result, the importance of unpaid work is increasingly being lifted up and recognized. For instance, the US government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) American Time Use Survey (www.bls.gov/tus) has been working since 2001 to track how, where, and with whom 70,000 people in the US spend their time. These time use data are relevant to a study of horizontal and vertical philanthropy. For instance, in 2007 in the US, people spent an average of 12 minutes per day (around an hour and a half per week, around 6 hours per month) caring for and helping non-household members and an average of 21 minutes per day (around two and a half hours per week, around 10 hours per month) volunteering in relation to organizational, civic, and religious activities. These categories of unpaid work vary by gender. In both cases, caring for people outside of one’s household and general volunteering, women give more time than men. Valuing unpaid giving work. Time-use studies such as the BLS American Time Use Survey allow us to understand how much unpaid work goes on across a country. Some researchers and policymakers have taken these data and argued that unpaid work should somehow be valued – not that people doing unpaid work should be paid, but that we might put a dollar value on unpaid work in some way to recognize its importance to local, national, and global economies. There have been different approaches to valuing unpaid work. As one example, the Canadian government (www.unpac.ca/economy) estimated the dollar value of all unpaid work (both in the home and outside of the home) in Canada, and compared that dollar amount to the official GDP. The value of all unpaid work was between 30% and 40% of GDP. As another example, the US website Salary.com calculates what a stay-at-home mother would earn if she were paid for all of her unpaid work; in 2007 the figure was over $138,000. One final example can be seen in efforts to place a dollar value on volunteer time. In the US, Independent Sector 22

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

(www.independentsector.org) calculates the dollar value each year for an hour of volunteer time; for 2007 that figure was $19.51 per hour. According to data from the BLS American Time Use Survey outlined above, in 2007 each person in the BLS survey spent an average of 16 hours per month (192 hours per year) caring for people outside of the home or volunteering around organizational, religious, or civic activities. If we try to put a dollar sign on this unpaid giving work, 192 hours per year at $19.51 per hour is $3,745 per person worth of unpaid giving outside the home. In 2007 there were 301 million people in the US. The total valuation of all of the unpaid giving outside of the home in the US is therefore somewhere around $1.1 trillion (310 million people x $3,745 (value of average hours per person of unpaid giving outside the home)). By comparison, the US total GDP was $13.78 trillion in 2007 (www.cia.gov). These dollar calculations are extremely rough, imprecise, and speculative. Nevertheless, it is useful and informative to gain some understanding (however rough) of what the work of unpaid giving might be worth in dollar terms. Recognizing and valuing remittances. Another way of estimating, recognizing, and valuing a form of giving is to look at the data on remittances, money sent by migrants back to their home country. Worldwide, Latin America receives the largest amount of remittances (www.ifad.org). There is five times the amount of money going into Latin America through remittances as through aid. In some ways, remittances may be more efficient and effective than aid; research studies show that in rural areas, remittances help families start businesses, provide education, build houses, and move out of poverty – all without going through governments as intermediaries (Mascaro, 2007). On average, each migrant in Latin America sends home around $2,600 (www.ifad.org). Within Latin America, Mexico receives around 35% of all remittances; Mexico receives the third-highest amount of remittances of any country in the world (after India and China). In 2007, Mexico received $24 billion in remittances. This is Mexico’s second largest national source of income, after oil exports. Many of these remittances are sent from the US. The amount of money sent from the US to Mexico is huge; it is also controversial. And yet these remittances play an important role. Remittances are typically not seen as philanthropy or giving, and yet this money helps people and places move out of poverty. For the purposes of this study, it is important to recognize and value unpaid giving work and remittances because both affirm the importance of the various forms of horizontal philanthropy that are lifted up by participants in this study. As Chapter 3 makes clear, research participants engage in many forms of giving among family and friends. Considered in isolation, it is easy to discount these acts of giving, support, and helping as too small, narrow, or local to make any real difference. The acts of giving and helping that people describe in Chapter 3 are all things that are close to home. They are things that we all do, every day. Many of these forms of giving are things that women tend to do more than men. They are ‘mama-centric’ forms of giving, as one member of our research team stated – things like providing emotional support for people, caring for others’ children, or caring for people who are ill or old. Taken individually, these forms of giving may not seem to amount to much. But the research reviewed above suggests that when looked at collectively, they are incredibly powerful and valuable, even in economic terms and even at a macroeconomic level. Vertical philanthropy: Related concepts and practices There are several concepts from academic fields that relate to vertical philanthropy, including research on charity, philanthropy, and the government and nonprofit sectors.

Charity. Horizontal philanthropy, mutual support within social networks, seems to occur naturally in people’s everyday lives; it is based on reciprocity and mutual obligation. We all give to the people we know and care about, because we care about them, because they have given to us in the past, and because we know they will give to us in the future. In some ways we’re all obligated, by our relationships with others, to engage in horizontal philanthropy. Vertical philanthropy, giving to and from institutions, is different; it often comes from different motivations. Vertical philanthropy may be a form of giving that is 23

The Center for Participatory Change

rooted more in altruism or charity than reciprocity, co-operation, or mutual obligation. The concept of charity – of giving money, goods, or time to people less fortunate than oneself – runs through all cultures and religions. In the US, the Christian conceptualization and history of charity has defined our vertical philanthropy (Bremner, 1988, 2000; Friedman & McGarvey, 2004; Jackson, 2006). The English term charity comes from the Latin word caritas, which is a translation of the Greek word agape (Jackson, 2006). Agape is a term used within the Christian tradition to denote love for others, particularly the form of unlimited love that the Christian God feels for people. The King James translation of the Bible into English lifted up the Christian triplet, “faith, love, and charity.” In the Christian tradition, charity originally meant this form of Christian love (agape), but it eventually came to be viewed as the act of giving money, goods, or time to people less fortunate than oneself. As this form of giving became institutionalized, charity became a noun; a charity became defined as an institution (such as an orphanage, a food bank, a hospital) that focuses on caring for the sick, the poor, or the needy. Thus in the US, the Christian conception of charity (both as a practice and an institution) is the foundation of how vertical philanthropy is carried out and institutionalized in local communities. Philanthropy. Like the term charity, philanthropy can refer either to the act of giving or to institutions that focus on giving. A recent book defines philanthropy as “voluntary action for the public good” (Payton & Moody, 2008; 6). This definition includes giving money, giving time and talent, and the various forms of organized ways that people give their time, talent, and money for the common good. In the US in the late 1800s, there was a transition from individual charity and informal voluntary associations to institutionalized philanthropy (Bremner, 1988, 2000; Friedman & McGarvey, 2004). A new professional sector arose in the US focused on charity or philanthropy. Formal caregiving institutions such as poorhouses, hospitals, and asylums developed after the US Civil War, with professionals to staff these new institutions and formal bureaucracies to ensure that they were run efficiently and effectively. By 1900, private foundations (which evolved from charitable trusts) had become widespread, becoming important philanthropic institutions, also with their own professionals and bureaucracies. With the rise of this sector of institutional philanthropy, vertical philanthropy became largely managed or mediated by institutions with their professional staff and their bureaucracies. The government and nonprofit sectors. Of the professionalized institutions of US philanthropy outlined above, some evolved into government agencies and others into nonprofit organizations. The period roughly between 1870 and 1970 saw the full development of what has been called the US welfare state (Axin & Stern, 2007; Trattner, 1998). Over time, the US government passed social welfare legislation creating government bodies and agencies that aimed to care for people around issues such as poverty, hunger, public health, child abuse and neglect, civil rights, and so on. Thus caring for the needy, which was previously the responsibility of informal charity, became partly a government responsibility, with attendant government professionals and bureaucracies. This came to be a crucial part of what is called the government sector in the US. Government social service agencies, however, did not try to address every need or reach every needy person. Another sector arose to respond to people’s needs: the nonprofit sector (O’Neill, 2002; Powell & Steinberg, 2006; The Urban Institute, 2006). A nonprofit organization is defined in the US largely by being granted tax-exempt status by the government; this status is granted to non-governmental organizations doing charitable or philanthropic work. The tax law in the US has evolved over time, but the basics of tax exemption were established in 1909 (Arnsberger et al., 2008). The US nonprofit sector includes tax-exempt service organizations of all kinds as well as foundations. There are 1.4 million registered nonprofit organizations in the US (The Urban Institute, 2006). In the US, vertical philanthropy is currently managed or mediated largely by the institutions, professionals, and bureaucracies of government social welfare agencies or nonprofit organizations (including foundations). The concepts above – charity, philanthropy, and the government and nonprofit sectors – are the major concepts that seemed to us to relate to vertical philanthropy as practiced in the United States. For the purposes of this study, the practices and institutions of vertical philanthropy in the US have their roots in 24

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

the Christian tradition of charity outlined above. At some point in US history (starting after the Civil War), charitable institutions began to become more formalized and professionalized; this signaled the emergence of philanthropy as outlined above. Roughly between 1870 and 1970, philanthropic or charitable institutions in the US evolved into the institutions that make up the government sector and the nonprofit sector, both of which continue to thrive in the US today. In sum, most current vertical philanthropy in the US is rooted in the traditions of charity and philanthropy outlined above; further, vertical giving in the US is typically carried out by individuals and institutions operating within the government and nonprofit sectors.

25

The Center for Participatory Change

Chapter 3 Data on Horizontal Philanthropy This chapter presents qualitative data on horizontal philanthropy, giving that occurs within social networks of family and friends. Horizontal philanthropy was reported by research participants to be the most important form of giving in their daily lives. Examples of horizontal giving lifted up as important by focus group participants included lending or giving money among friends and family members, providing mutual emotional support among friends and family members, providing caregiving support among friends, family members, and church members when people are ill or injured, and so on. It is clear from the stories below that horizontal philanthropy is characterized by passion, energy, reciprocity, humility, informality, and a sense of we-ness or collective energy. Horizontal giving occurs naturally. It is a core part of who we all are and what we all do, every day. The stories below also express a deep and humble appreciation for times when we need and receive help. Giving and receiving are both important, and being engaged in both is what makes horizontal philanthropy mutual or reciprocal. At the same time, the humility and everydayness that flows through the stories may make it easy to under-acknowledge or under-appreciate the magnitude of the impact of this form of giving. The quotations below can potentially read as a laundry list of heart-warming individual stories. However, the impact of these stories, when taken collectively, is significant, even stunning – recall the data on valuing unpaid work and remittances outlined in Chapter 2. When reading the stories below, we have to keep in mind the cumulative impact on people, families, and communities of millions of such stories across the US. The data below are organized by what is given—the type of gift that is made or received. The categories into which the quotations are organized were generated both by focus group participants (as they talked about giving in their communities) and by researchers (as we made sense of the data from the focus groups). Thirteen categories of giving were identified. These are listed below, roughly in order of importance to participants. This chapter presents data that tell the story of what giving and support within social networks looks like in the following categories of giving: 1. Emotional support 2. Money 3. Caregiving 4. Information and skills 5. Labor 6. Food 7. Transportation 8. Support around racism 9. Immigration support 10. Cultural work 11. Housing 12. Faith and spiritual support 13. Material goods

26

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Two broad introductory points. Before turning to the categories of giving listed above, it is worth mentioning two broad, summary themes related to horizontal philanthropy: the broad definition of family that research participants used, and the critical importance of family, friends, and social networks. The line between family and friends can become blurred. Several people mentioned that it is at times hard to separate out family from other social networks, because close friends often become so important in people’s lives that they seem to be family and act like family, even though there is no blood relationship. This is captured in the comments below, which are taken from several different focus groups: African American participant: Well, there are a lot of ways I define family, and it’s not just by blood. There’s my family family, my friends family, and my church family. But they’re all family. Cherokee participant: Around here, a lot of my family, whether you're kin to my family or not, they treat each other as family. A lot of people around here are kin to each other. We're interconnected. European American participant: Family doesn't have to be blood. I have friends who are like family. I'm called “Aunt Barbara” by my daughter's best friends. We just all helped raise each other's kids. And Alice is “Mama Alice.” Family, friends, and neighbors are important networks through which giving occurs. In many different ways, the data showed clearly that family networks and networks of friends were the most important social networks through which giving and support occur. One Hmong participant emphasized family networks: Hmong participant: To me, something that is most important in a daily life would be my immediate family and then secondly, extended family or relatives. With those two, you depend on them and they depend on you. When you have something you want them to come and help with, they do; and when they have something, they expect you to go and help them. That's just daily life. Several Latino participants emphasized networks of friends, especially since their families were often far away: Latino participant: We all ask for help from our friends first. If I need money, I know a friend will always help me. If I need a job, I ask my friend and he is going to help me find one. If I need a ride, I go to a friend; if I need food, I go to a friend too. Latino participant: As Latino immigrants we get more help from our friends than from any other community. Because we have everything against us here, so our friends are the only ones who can really help us – we have survived here because of our friends. Latino participant: Also, in my case, my family is so far away – they are far from me and I don’t have any family around. The people I know here have become my family. They are a big help. They look after me; they worry about me; they give me advice. They help in everything they can. Keeping those two points in mind, we will proceed to explore the different types of horizontal giving that research participants described as important in their lives.

27

The Center for Participatory Change

1. Emotional support. Providing and receiving emotional support was, along with giving or loaning money, one of the most important forms of horizontal philanthropy identified by study participants. Emotional support included listening, empathizing with people, being there for people, and providing encouragement. Much emotional support comes from family members. Here a European American participant talks about emotional support from his grandfather: European American participant: I remember, a while ago, my grandfather, he started a painting business. And he got me into it, showed me all the ropes. And then I cut my hand in half. Well, I was devastated. Because all I had was painting. And you gotta have your hand for painting. He sat me down, and he told me, “If you want to believe the doctors, that you can't paint no more, then you sit there and you wallow in your self-pity and you believe it. But I'm telling you, you'll be right back painting, even if it takes a year, if it takes two years. You'll get up and you'll be right back at it.” And he was right. I listened to him. I didn't sit there and do what the doctors wanted me to do - not try to fight, not try to get back right. That was important support, there. Members of grassroots groups were also described as important sources of emotional support. For many, having friends that one could rely on was the most important benefit from being part of a grassroots group. Comments below from a Latino focus group capture this. All of the people speaking below are members of a Latina women’s group in a relatively isolated, rural mountain county in Western North Carolina. Latino participant: I think the moral and the emotional support is so important. It is even more important than money. We could get money, but if we don’t have anybody to talk to, anybody listening to us…. Latino participant: It is so true. When you are all alone it is really sad. Sometimes you get depressed, especially being so far away from your family. Sometimes it doesn’t make sense being here [in the United States], because we are really lonely. Latino participant: Yes, something very important is that we find comfort being with other people, maybe because some of us are alone, and we don’t have any family around us. That’s why we look for the support and help from others. Latino participant: Especially in the mountains. It feels very isolated, since the houses are a little far from each other. I mean, the house is up there in the mountain, and you are there and you have no one. You are isolated. Latino participant: I think that without the support or the friendship, without getting help from each other, it would be very difficult for us to be just at home. Or just going to work and coming back – I think it would be very sad. Friends always help. Latino participant: I think that just the fact of listening to each other or offering our hand – well, I speak for myself. I don’t know many people. I started coming here [to a women’s group at a rural Latino center] a little while ago. I met Carla. I met Juana. 28

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

You get to make friends here, and sometimes just a phone call or whatever – that’s a big help. In my case, since I don’t know many people around here, I find it very depressing just to be locked in [my house]. Of course, my life changed since I had my daughter, but you always need someone to talk to, somebody to share your problems or your happiness with, somebody who can offer you good advice. Comments from an African American focus group tell a similar story: African American participant: It’s important when you have empathy of a situation because you've been there, you went through the experiences that the other person may be going through. African American participant: Sharing a kind word, showing that you care. Being open to listening to what somebody needs to say. African American participant: Sometimes just a smile makes someone feel better.

2. Money. Giving and receiving loans and gifts of money was another important form of horizontal philanthropy lifted up in this study. This sharing of money took many forms. One example comes from Latino focus groups, where participants reported sharing money with their family members in Mexico, Central America, or South America. This sharing of money, called remittances, is very important at the family level and the level of national economies: In 2006, an estimated $47 billion was sent by workers in the United States to their family members in Latin America and the Caribbean countries (see Chapter 2 for more information). A micro-level, on-the-ground feel for how and why this incredible sharing of money happens is provided by the comments below: Latino participant: I clean places [houses or businesses], and the purpose is to send money to my family in Mexico. That is my main purpose [for being in the United States]. I have a family there who needs my help. Latino participant: Unfortunately we are all here for the same reason – something we wish we had in our own countries, and that is the economy [the strong economy in the United States, compared to most Latin American countries]. If it was not for that, we wouldn’t be here. Latino participant: Yes, it is our reason to be here. Sometimes it is so difficult, and you say, “I would like to leave. I wish I could see my mom. I wish I could see my grandma, my grandpa.” But then you think: If you leave, you feel like you will not be able to get by there, not be able to survive and pay for your children’s education. And then you say, “I’d better stay a few years longer.” You don’t say a few more days anymore, you stay here for years, and it is difficult to decide to go back. You ask the people there [in Mexico], “How is the economy there?” They say, “It is worse than ever.” And then you go, “How am I going to leave [the United States], then? I have to help them.” And that is very difficult. Latino participant: I have a question. So it is true that if we had the same economic opportunity in Mexico, we would go back, right? Latino participant: Right, I would.

29

The Center for Participatory Change

Latino participant: So therefore if we are not happy here, but we have to be here because of that economic situation, then we are not immigrants – we are economic refugees. Latino participant: I agree with you. I think we are economic refugees. Latino participant: And in the case of my children, I think that if I were in Mexico, they wouldn’t be doing well. We would be barely surviving. According to study participants, giving and loaning money happens a great deal among families within the United States as well. The comments below, from two different focus groups, paint a picture of the various ways in which this occurs: European American participant: In the past, my family loaned me money, and it was for whatever I needed at the time, whatever I needed to get my leg up to the next level, whether it be transportation, or shelter. And those are huge things, when we start to look at becoming more stable in life. Hmong participant: We make loans, because if someone doesn’t have the credit to get loans from the bank, we'll loan them the money without interest or make donations. Especially for weddings and funerals, because they're so expensive. You help a family member, and they help you later. Hmong participant: A lot of other loans happen because a lot of the elders, they don't like to be in debt. So for instance if they are going to buy a new car, they usually just borrow from the immediate family to get that amount of money and use that to buy the car. So the loan is interest free; you usually cash out the car and pay it back to the family. Hmong participant: Another example where we loan money is like if you want to start a business. A lot of Hmong businesses come about like that, where you loan money. Gifts and loans also occur among friends and neighbors. This collection of comments, from various focus groups, shows some of the ways that this occurs: Latino participant: Well, at my home, there are two other families – there is a couple that works, and there is another family, but the man is the only one working there. We help each other, and since there is only one person working in the other family, sometimes we help them. Sometimes they don’t have enough money, and they need to pay a bill or pay the rent, and we lend them money. Whenever they get some money, then we get the money back. We also help them in case they don’t have enough money to buy food. We try to share our food. Latino participant: Also whenever someone dies, people get together and cooperate with money so they are able to send the body back to Mexico. African American participant: I have friends who have financial needs. I know who I'm giving to - I know they're not gonna give it back. But it's OK. And then some of the young women, they might say, “Well, Ms Barbara, I'm taking a class, and I need a book. Can you help me?” And I say, “OK, come by.” And then I find out that they're really not taking a class. But that's OK. Once you give it to them one time, and you let them know that you know that they didn't do the right thing, then you don't have to worry about them anymore. They won't come back anymore.

30

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

European American participant: One thing I see a lot is people helping each other by raising money to cover medical costs, to cover things that insurance won't cover. Sort of community action – the jug at the convenience store, and the spaghetti suppers. Latino participant: Among the people from my community in Mexico, since I am here [in the US], we have tried to stay together. Just to give you an example: Right now one of the members of the community is sick, and he is getting dialysis. So we organize raffles and stuff like that, so we can help him economically.

3. Caregiving. Another important form of giving and receiving is taking care of others, especially children or elders, or people who are ill or injured. Forms of caregiving varied: watching others’ children, cooking food for people who are ill, cleaning folks’ house who are sick or injured. Many different examples are found in the stories below. In some ways, this form of giving is related to money. Study participants said again and again that if they had to pay for the caregiving that they received from family, friends, or church members, there is no way that they could have afforded it. Gifts of caregiving are not directly gifts of money, but they save people so much money that they are seen as important as gifts of money. Within families, family members take care of each others’ children. Comments from an African American focus group provide one example: African American participant: She's [a focus group participant] a single mom, raising a son. And he has turned out so well. She's raised him all by herself. And she's had a time with it. African American participant: Yes, but my Mom and Dad and the rest of my family helped a lot, with childcare, picking him up…. African American participant [the previous speaker’s mother]: Childcare, transportation. Lots of transportation. Money. Counseling. Emotional support. Education. Prayer. Lots of prayer. And housing. And it's still going on. She has clients, and she has to work. And so who picks him up and takes him to basketball? In a Latino focus group, women also talked about help with taking care of their children, and they contrasted this form of informal help within families directly with the prohibitive costs of formal childcare. Note that the women speaking may be undocumented, and therefore lack access to government supports (like childcare subsidies or temporary income subsidies) that US citizens may be able to access. Latino participant: This factory that I worked at for six years closed, and I have been looking for a job, and so far I haven’t been able to get a job. Things are getting difficult at home paying the bills. When my husband and I worked we didn’t have any problems, but right now there are not many jobs. In many places they require people to have their documentation up to date. I have gone there, and they say, “There are no vacancies.” And the only help I have gotten so far is from my Mom. She is with me, and she helps me taking care of the kids whenever I have to clean a house. I am free to go there, and my Mom will take care of the kids. Latino participant: Sometimes we don’t even notice, but taking care of the kids is a big help. It is a huge help, because it is expensive to get that kind of care.

31

The Center for Participatory Change

Latino participant: Three or four days ago I visited a few daycare centers. I want to work, and I need to enroll my daughter in a daycare. Our salary is approximately $250 a week. The daycare charges $160 a week, and let’s say I spend $50 in gas [driving to and from the childcare center]. When we realized the fees we would need to pay at the daycare, my husband said, “You are going to leave your daughter – you are not going to take care of her – for just $40.00 a week?” Latino participant: That is our problem sometimes; we can’t work because of our kids. And those people who keep kids at their houses, they would charge at least $12 or $15 per hour. And now with the price of gas, how are we supposed to pay for that? Caregiving for people when they are injured or ill is equally important. In the story below, from an African American focus group, a woman tells how her family and close friends pitched in to care for her (and later, her husband) when she was ill. She also talks about how she could not have afforded this care, if she had had to pay for it. African American participant: Well, I have had a lot of health issues – quite serious ones, ones that lasted two years. And I needed a lot of help. I had some real faithful friends. As Sherice put it: blood family, and family that wasn't blood but were like blood, where we've been friends all of our lives. Without those friends and family, I don't know what we would have done, really. We had insurance, and my husband worked every day, and I had had to come out of work at that time. It would have taken everything that he made, and everything that we had saved, to care for me. Because there were times that we went through that I couldn't open the door to let my caregiver in. My caregiver at that time was my sister-in-law, who had retired early. And she came in every single morning to take care of me. Without all of that help and that support and that encouragement, and listening to me cry and yell – because I'd be in so much pain, I would just cry because I was hurting so bad. And I wasn't a drug person, and didn't want to take those strong drugs, so I would just suffer, and cry some. In the meantime, while I was sick, my husband got sick too. We were tried in the fire, as the Scripture says. We were tried. We really were. And if it hadn't been for family and friends, we couldn't have made it. There would have been no way that we could have made it. Facilitator: That's a great story. I don't need to know all the details, but can you run through a list of all of the different things that people did for you? Participant: They would clean my house, because I was kind of a funny person about my house being clean. The people who knew me knew that, so they would clean my house. They would cook food, either at my house or they would cook food at their house and bring it. They did the laundry. They washed, and they ironed. They transported me back and forth to the doctors for doctor's visits. And sometimes I had doctor's visits in Asheville or Sylva [towns nearly an hour away], and they would carry me back and forth. And my sister-in-law would come in once, or twice, or three times a day to check on me. Because at that time I wasn't able to get up out of a chair, without help. When she would finish her morning visit, she put a table by my chair, and on that table she would put water, fruit, the telephone, crackers - things like that that I could get to.

32

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

I just had a network of people who helped. And they would bring me little gifts to cheer me up. It was just so much done for me, that if you had to put a monetary value on it, you never could. Because it was just too much. Too much done. I'm thankful. I'm very thankful. As is clear in the story above, friends and neighbors (as well as family) play an important caregiving role. In a European American focus group, a woman told a story about how her friends and neighbors took care of her son when he had an injury: European American participant: I have a personal story, about an injury. Not a terrible injury, but I always think of this as indicative of how supportive people in this county are. One afternoon my youngest son was playing basketball at a local gym, and my older son was with him. My younger son was probably still in elementary school. And we had left them there, because my 16-year-old was going to be there with him, playing basketball. Bobby had gotten into running under the bleachers, playing chase with a friend, chasing each other around. And he brought his head up, and he hit a beam, and he ended up slicing across the top of his head, and he had a horrible cut. He came out from under the bleachers, and my older son didn't know what to do. And we weren't there. We had dropped them off and had to go somewhere else. And there were no cell phones. Karen Barker was there with her boys. There were so many people who got to him, and saw he was badly cut. She gave him a ride up to the medical center, and they called us from the medical center. We did have a car phone. And of course I was screaming. [Laughter] My oldest son was going, “Mom, first – Bobby’s OK, but....” [Laughter] And Dr. Baker gets on. Bobby had a very bad gash, and had all these stitches. We waited till she [the doctor] was done, and took him home. And I felt horrible, like “Why did we leave him?” But at the same time it was wonderful, because so many people helped him get the help he needed. We got to our house, and the message box was full. There were so many kids who had been there, and it was so sweet because they all called to see how he was. And I think Brian [another participant's son] was one of them. Participant: Yeah he was. He told me, “Bobby sliced his head off!” [Laughter] It got worse as the day went on. Participant: And I know in any community, people would help a wounded child. But it was just that wonderful feeling, because I knew every one of those people. There were no questions asked: “We'll get him there.” And we were forever grateful. Participant: It's like “Whose child is this?” It's everybody's child. Others talked about how friends and neighbors pitched in when people were ill or injured. Below are a few stories from a European American focus group: European American participant: I recently had surgery, and a lot of people brought me food, called and checked on me, sent notes. And I loved it. It was great. Participant: I had the same experience, indirectly. My Dad had surgery. But local friends sent cards to my Dad in Raleigh [about five hours away]. And calling and 33

The Center for Participatory Change

checking. And I never have been on the receiving end of that. And you really need it. It really helps. Checking in with you. European American participant: A little over a year ago, my middle son was at work and fell from an eighth story roof to a fourth story roof. And he crushed his back and broke his elbow and his ribs. But he lived. And this community just put its arms around us. And we had the food, and the calls, and the time. It's just unbelievable. People are so giving. And it was church, it was people who live on the spring [neighbors], it was coworkers. People we did not even know. One of the most touching things was that my other son, who has Down's Syndrome – he has a girlfriend who he's had since seventh grade. Her mother mailed me an envelope. They go to a small church in Bailey’s Cove. And there was a little piece of fabric in there. And she said, “This was anointed in our church. And we've prayed for Bart.” And that just touched me. And so I took that piece of fabric, and I taped it to his hospital bed. And I thought, “There's people everywhere praying for us, and offering us support.” It's unbelievable, what we have here. You can't put a price on it. European American participant: I got very sick after my second child was born. Very sick. I had to go to Duke [a university medical facility 5 hours away]. I was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. I'm fine now, but I was bad off. Well, my neighbor showed up. My son was seven pounds, and I couldn't even lift him up. I was bad. My neighbor showed up, and she knocked on my door, and she said, “I'm here to help you.” And I was like, “Oh no, no; I'm fine.” And she looked at me, and she said, “Are you gonna deny me a blessing?” I went, “Come on in. The laundry is over there.” [Laughter] Church members were another source of caregiving support when people were ill or injured. This story below, from an African American focus group, is one example: African American participant: Well I'm very active in my church, and have been for forever. One of the offices that I hold, the one that I like most of all, is called “class leader.” I'm a class leader. So I have about 15 people, or members, that I sort of look after. They have all kinds of needs, from financial needs to someone just to talk to or encourage them. So if they are sick, I visit with them and see what their needs are. And whatever their needs are, I have to see that their needs are met. Sometimes it can be very taxing, because I'm very serious about taking care of these people that I'm watching over. Well I had surgery, back surgery, about six months ago. And of course I have a big family. So my sisters and some friends of theirs were taking care of me, and helping me get my shower, and prepare my food, and whatever needs I had. But one of the most rewarding things, and something that amazed me the most, were my class members. I'm getting lots of knocks on my door. And it's the men - I have men and women in my class. Some of them don't particularly attend church like they should. But they have found out that I had surgery. So they're knocking on my door. They're ringing my phone. And they're there for me. And I found that just to be amazing. And I never thought that would happen. Because I was always the one giving to them. But now these same people are coming to see about me. And I think that lifted me higher than anything. My family was there, my pastor was there. But these guys that were in my class…. When they would come in, they would be like, “Well I thought I better come see about my class leader.” So that meant a lot to me. 34

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Finally, taking care of elder neighbors is another way that caregiving occurs within social networks: African American participant: It seems my lot or my task is to see about some sick and shut-in in the community, and particularly the elderly. I do a lot of that. But I find it rewarding, because we don't have a lot of elderly people - when I say “elderly,” I'm a senior myself, but I mean like 80 or 90 years old - we don't have them in the neighborhood much anymore. …I take them food; I prepare them food. I find out what their special foods are, what they will eat. I run errands: I run to the grocery store, or pick up their meds, or whatever.

4. Information and skills. Study participants also talked about sharing information and skills with others. Information included things like where work is available or where people can get needed resources or services (like affordable medicines or health care). Skills included skills for making money, skills around home repair, and cooking skills. The comments below, from several different focus groups, portray the importance of sharing information among friends and neighbors: Hmong participant: I think this is something that is important: The way that the Hmong really help each other is by telling each other things. If I see a job opening somewhere, we tell each other, and if you see me do something good or not good, we tell each other. Latino participant: The way I have helped is by sharing things I know or things I have found out. I try to share the important things, like places where you can get groceries for free or places where you can get English classes. I tell people that kids can get free books in the libraries – I want people to take advantage of all that. African American participant: It's like I seem to always know where something is that somebody needs. And I might not need it, whether it's clothing or work, or whatever. That's become my role, being able to connect people. It's like I put an ad in the newspaper somewhere saying, “I'm here. I'm a clearinghouse for whatever.” A similar sharing of information occurs among members of grassroots groups, particularly among Latinos: Latino participant: Getting a good employment opportunity is difficult here, especially for women. Work here is very hard. It is not easy to find something. Right now as a group [a women’s group that is part of a grassroots Latino center], we share information like, “Hey, you know, they need someone there,” or “I am unemployed; do you know if there’s somewhere I could apply?” We try to help each other like that. We try to inform each other, to share our tips. Since it is difficult for us to get medical attention, we share that kind of information as well: “Hey, they are helping in the clinic with this,” or “The medicine is cheaper at this pharmacy,” or “Go to this doctor because it is more accessible or more affordable.” People also talked about sharing skills, especially among friends and neighbors. These comments, from several different focus groups, illustrate some of the ways that people share skills with others: Cherokee participant: I had a friend, not too long after I got here - I was needing money. I'm always needing money. He took me out and taught me how to dig ginseng [to dig and

35

The Center for Participatory Change

sell wild native Appalachian ginseng, which grows in remote locations], and how to work for myself. And he shared that with me, when he didn't have to. A way of making money. European American participant: I am not handy around the house. If my cabinet isn't right, I have friends that come and fix something for me. Somebody had to put in a bathroom cabinet. I had a professional do it, or so I thought. But it was not lined up right, so I had to call a friend, and he said, “I’ll come over.” He just volunteered his time. Actually we cooked dinner for him, so he was happy. And that was a good exchange, because he would have just gone to get fast food that night. He got a nice dinner, and I got a nice bathroom cabinet, like it should be. So for me, skills are an area where I get help personally and give something back. Cherokee participant: A church in Elmont has asked John and me to help them with a benefit. They will take money that they raise tonight to do mission work. They are organizing the benefit, and they called us to do the fry bread [a Native specialty, literally fried bread]. They'll do the rest of it. And they'll keep all the money to do mission work. Facilitator: Because they don't have somebody to cook fry bread? Cherokee participant: They probably have somebody who could do it, but they like John’s. [Laughter]

5. Labor. People help each other out by sharing physical labor, by working manually for others. Sometimes this is informal, other times it is more organized. Various kinds of labor mentioned by study participants included cleaning up around the house, fixing cars, digging graves, and home repairs, from minor ones like adjusting cabinets to major ones like building a wheelchair ramp or putting on a new roof. Sometimes this sharing of labor occurred among family members, but more often among friends and neighbors. Below is one example from within a family: Latino participant: When I got here [to the United States], I didn’t know anyone but my daughter and my grandchildren. And they speak English, so I would stay at home. I used to stay in all the time, because I didn’t understand anything, right? My daughter and my son-in-law would go to work, and the kids would go to school, and I would stay alone. But then I would think, “Well, whenever Marta gets back, she won’t find all these dirty clothes, and all these dirty dishes.” It is very depressing to get home and see the bunch of dishes. You know, they come home tired, and then they have to do chores at home. So I would try to make our lives better [by doing chores]…. A second example features members of one’s church: African American participant: About a year ago, I fell and broke my ankle. My church the men of my church - came over and put me up a railing, so that I could hold on. Because old people need something to hold onto. [Laughter] So I have a railing. And my church has come over and put a roof on my house. I paid for the materials, but they did the labor as volunteers. Two different grassroots groups organized their shared labor in a more formal, structured way. Within Cherokee communities, there is a tradition of what is in English called free labor groups – groups through which labor is shared for the community good. These are described below. Another grassroots group has developed a “time-dollar” program called Local Bucks. These are programs where members agree to

36

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

provide services for “local dollars,” which they can then exchange with other members for services that they need. This program too is described below. First, the Cherokee free labor groups: Facilitator: Some of you have mentioned the free labor groups…. Cherokee participant: Well, Shining Creek’s got one. Deep Cove too. And I'm really proud of them, because they do a lot for their community. They take materials and do roofs for people, or build them ramps, or whatever it is that they need done. They dig graves. And they do it all a lot. It's all volunteer. They do the labor and the materials. Cherokee participant: And they have turkey shoots and various things to raise money. The women support the men. When there is a benefit, the women do the cooking, on a Saturday. Indian dinners, and hamburgers, and hot dogs. We try to get the women out there volunteering as much as possible. Facilitator: How does it work concretely? Like if I need a ramp up, do I let you know? Or do you hear, “Oh Nick needs a ramp because he's in a wheelchair now?” How does it work? How do you know who needs a roof or a ramp? Cherokee participant: Usually it goes through the Community Club Council members. People tell the Council members what they need. Each community has a building with a gym and all that in it. And that's where they all meet, during the community meetings. And when they have those meetings, the Council members from that community are there. People tell the Council members what they need, and that's sort of how it happens. The ones appointed over the Free Labor Groups - people will tell them, and then they go gather the people and tools and materials needed for the job. They usually just let it be known what they're going to do, and whoever can come on that day will come and work and donate their time. And they do the free labor. Below is a description and explanation of the time-dollar program, where community members donate their labor and skills and receive a “local buck” in return. European American participant: The only time I ever get called [by the local grassroots group] is when something breaks over here, and we have to come over here and help fix it. Oh, by the way, Nancy, we got one weed-eater running, but the lawnmower needs to go to the shop. Facilitator: So tell me about the kinds of things you fix - weed-eaters, lawn-mowers... European American participant: Cabinets, automobiles. If people within this community have trouble with their cars, Nancy will call us, and we'll check them out and see if we can fix it for them. Doors, windows, latches, whatever. We fix it. European American participant: When this center first opened, we re-did the cabinets. Whoever first put the cabinets in didn't know what the hell they were doing. [Laughter]. So that was the first thing we had to fix. The drawers kept falling apart. You'd open the drawers, and they'd just fall right out. We re-glued and put them back together, and made them work. Water line - we had to fix that too. European American participant: We don't mind helping out the community and stuff. It's our community. And Nancy talked me into signing up for Local Bucks [a skills and labor

37

The Center for Participatory Change

exchange program operated by the grassroots group]. Well, that was a mistake. [Laughter] Facilitator: Can somebody explain how Local Bucks works? European American participant: I can. You volunteer an hour of your time, and you get a Local Buck. You can trade Local Bucks. Once I needed a cat out of a tree. It didn't cost me dollars and cents; it cost me Local Bucks. And I had a lot of Local Bucks. So it worked out for both of us. He [the man who rescued the cat] appreciated it; I appreciated it. It was a very good thing. I love Local Bucks. You just sign up, and volunteer. And this is community anyway; I would do it whether I got Local Bucks or not. But it just so happens that Local Bucks come in handy several times a year. So I appreciate that. Finally, one participant in a European American focus group described how there was much more shared labor in her community in the past than there is in the present: European American participant: One of the things that I wanted to talk about was looking at this from a historical perspective, from my point of view. [The speaker is a native of this particular county and has seven generations on one side of the family and five generations on the other side who have been in this county.] I've been to places where somebody's house burned, or maybe a neighbor building a new building, be it a barn or a house, and the whole community gathered together. And it was a social event. It was not only the people who had the skills coming to help do what needed to be done, but it became a social event, because the whole community was there, and there was always a potluck dinner, always a potluck dinner. I've lived in the Harper’s Road community all my life. When I was younger, my parents owned a farm, and my Dad farmed most of the time. And there was always a comingtogether whenever there was a crop that needed to be gotten in. Some of them were relatives, and some were just neighbors that he “swapped work with” - that was the term they used. He would go help them; they would come and help him - put up tobacco or whatever.

6. Food. When people are hungry, family, friends, and neighbors step in to help. There are several stories below where people were offered food when they needed it. First, a study participant in a European American focus group makes a general statement about the importance of food that family members have given her over the years: European American participant: When I was younger, and I was trying to stand on my own two feet, and trying to get started - but not doing it very successfully - there were times when my Dad and my grandmother came walking through the door, carrying bags of groceries. And you would have thought they had $100 bills in the bags. I was so happy to see those bags of groceries. They came in with bags of groceries, and diapers. And I felt like I had won the lottery or something. The story below is more specific, a story of a Latino family who was out of work and out of food and received help from a neighbor:

38

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Latino participant: I would like to share something with you. This is something I will never forget because it was an experience – it was sad when it happened, but it helped us too. Many people work in the pine [harvesting lumber or Christmas trees, working at sawmills] during the season, but whenever the season ends, there is no work for us. We didn’t have anything to eat at home. There was no food, and I had a little girl. People cut leaves here [they cut galax, a native Appalachian plant, to sell to florists]. My husband decided to try that, but he had never done that before. So he went to this hill, not knowing if there was something there. And he couldn’t find anything. I was hoping that by the evening he would get home with some money to buy groceries. He got home very tired and with no money, and he asked me what were we going to eat. I had two potatoes, but they already had some root on them, so I told him we were going to eat that. He said, “Okay, let’s eat that then.” So I was just setting up the table when an elderly man from our neighborhood came. He had two plates of chicken with him, from this restaurant. He had the full order, the chicken and the soda. He came to deliver that to other people, but they were not at home. So he walked up and knocked on our door. He asked us if we wanted the food. We said, “Yes.” My husband and I were crying. We realized that God knew we didn’t have money for food, but that man came and brought us that food. Two additional stories came from a Cherokee focus group; sharing food is important culturally and historically in Native communities. Cherokee participant: Well, my husband is not here, but he fishes a lot. And he gives his fish to widows, like there are some who live on our road. And there was one time, it was one evening, and a truck pulled up outside, and there was a man who lived a couple of houses down from us. He had seen my husband carrying the fish home. And he had come up. It was late. It was like 9:00 or something. And he wanted to know if he could have those fish. Well, the fish were already gone by then. So I just went to the refrigerator and started looking, and I had a package of hamburger, and I went out and I was going, “Are you hungry?” And I just gave him that pack of hamburger. And that's just one way people give. My husband can't afford to go out and buy stuff, maybe, but he fishes. And gives the fish to people. Cherokee participant: I had a connection last year with someone whose home had burned out. And I called around and tried to find services for these two people. And I finally called over the Chief's office, to see if there was any food. And they said, “Yeah, take them down to Family Services; we just had a food drive. They'll take care of them.” I took them down. They came out with one little Wal-Mart bag each. And I was like, “Well, where's the rest of it?” And they said, “Well, that's all they said we were gonna get.” So after cussing and crying and moaning and groaning, I was like, “OK. What don't you eat?” And they said, “Why?” And I said, “I'm gonna go buy you some groceries.” And I dropped them off at the place they were staying, and I went and got almost $200 worth of food. They didn't have salt, pepper, anything. They had lost everything. I just got them the basics, the staples.

39

The Center for Participatory Change

So I took this food to them, and when I got back, I was helping them carry in the food, and they had two little cans that they had just gotten from Family Services. And they were standing there eating them, from the can, using a plastic fork. And again, I was like, “OK.” I didn't ask any questions then. Because I knew they didn't have anything. So I went back home and got out anything extra from our kitchen, that we didn't use for cooking, and took it back down there.

7. Transportation. Another important form of giving was offering people rides and loaning them cars. This sharing of rides or cars happened mostly among family, friends, and neighbors. Several general comments, from several different focus groups, begin to show the importance of sharing transportation: European American participant: I ride the bus, but sometimes you can't get there on time, so my Mom and my Pa-Paw [grandfather] help me sometimes to get places. European American participant: I have neighbors and friends who don't have a car, or any transportation, and I drive them. I take them to shop for food and take them to doctors' appointments and hospitals. I think that's neighbors helping neighbors. Giving rides was important for all study participants, but particularly for Latinos. Immigrant Latinos in the US often lack driver’s licenses. In the past, it was possible to get a driver’s license in many US states with a taxpayer identification number. More recently, most states, including North Carolina, require a social security number or other proof of citizenship. People who are in the US without documentation are generally no longer able to get driver’s licenses; this obviously makes it very difficult to get around. This difficulty is reflected in the comments below: Latino participant: Whenever people call me to ask for a ride, I take them to work or to Wal-Mart or to an appointment. Latino participant: One day I saw this kid walking by, and I drove him to Atlanta [a three-hour trip] without asking for money. They [an employer] got him through an agency [a temporary workers agency] in Atlanta, and they made him work in an office right by the car wash. He said he worked there for two weeks, and they wouldn’t pay him. I was like, “How come they didn’t pay you?” He said, “No, they wouldn’t pay me a single dollar.” He was just walking by Highway 726. I had things to do that day. I got him in my car and I took him all the way to Atlanta. I brought him to his family. Latino participant: Sometimes I see the farm workers walking by and I get them in my car. I am on my way to selling my tamales and I take them where they need to go. Latino participant: Well, I am living that situation now. I don’t have transportation. I don’t have a driver’s license, therefore I can’t drive, and I have always gotten help. I always get a ride. Latino participant: Last year my car – well, my car is old, and it was broken, and it broke down. My Mexican friends from Zacatecas – they have several cars, they have a truck – they let me use their car for two months. They let me use their car while my car was being repaired. And I was thinking that sometimes it doesn’t seem like a big thing, but without that car I wouldn’t be able to work, and if I am not able to work, I wouldn’t get an income, and if I don’t make an income, I can’t send money to my family in Colombia.

40

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Latino participant: My husband started taking me to work, but then I met some coworkers, and there was this girl – she was from the Ukraine, and she didn’t know me. She saw me there for a few days, and she offered to bring me home and to pick me up. Maybe she empathized with me because she was an immigrant as well, and she helped me a lot. It was very important for me. Latino participant: A while ago, I didn’t even care about my insurance, and I got my driver’s license suspended. They suspended my insurance as well, and I was not able to drive my car. Thank God the people from the [church’s] Youth Group helped me. My girlfriend would give me a ride every morning. I would borrow the cars of people from our group. I couldn’t get around without them.

8. Support around racism. Study participants talked a lot about racism, its impacts on their daily lives, and the need for support from others to address the racism they encounter. Racism came up in African American focus groups, Hmong focus groups, and Latino focus groups. It was talked about a bit differently in each setting, but the basic point was the same: Institutional racism and interpersonal racism run all through our communities; this racism affects people deeply; and people need support from family, friends, and neighbors in dealing with racism’s negative effects. These comments, from a Hmong focus group, talk about racism in the workplace: Hmong participant: I want to say something regarding working. When we go to work, we are citizens of this country. But when we go and work, they look at our physical appearances. For example, two of us are friends and one is White and one is me. We work the same position, but when there is a problem with the both of us, I get in trouble more. My friend, the White friend, even though he was wrong, they don't seem to acknowledge that he's at fault. I have seen this happen, and it bothers me. If we go and complain, we will risk them showing us the door. And what will we eat then? If we don't say anything, we have to bear the pain and headache. When they yell at you, you do hear, but you can't answer them. It is such a pain to go through. We have no other choice. We have a household and a home; we can't go and complain and fight at work because if we quit, what will we eat? So we almost have to live a life, as the elders always say, “like a dog that stepped on poop and bows its head and walks under the table.” Not able to do anything about it, just having to deal with it. We are upset about this particular topic, and I wanted to mention this so that you all will have heard what we are going through. Hmong participant: We know that because we are of a different race, a different color, and a different language, there is discrimination. You can't deny that it doesn't happen. As much as we want to assimilate into this culture, there's still people out there that discriminate and prejudge you. Hmong participant: Within our community, you either fight it or suck it in. I mean there's nothing else to do. And we give each other emotional support. Or if I've got a job somewhere I say “Why don't you come over here and let me see if I can help you get into this job?” That's how we help each other out. In an African American focus group, participants talked about racism in the broader community:

41

The Center for Participatory Change

African American participant: I want this county to change. They need to change. They're stuck too far back in time. They need to come into the present. Apologies need to be made. Because they have for years mistreated us. African American participant: Racism is taught. My aunt was telling me that the day after the Martin Luther King breakfast - the next day - a little kid came into school with a stars and bars [a Confederate flag] hat and a stars and bars shirt. The very next day. And he doesn't know what he's wearing, I'm sure, because he's in Kindergarten. He's being taught to hate. It's a sad situation, in this day and time, 2008. And it needs to change. The people in this county are blind to that. They don't want to see that it exists. African American participant: They don't want to admit that it exists. But they know. African American participant: Some kids too will look at you in the grocery store and call you the "N" word. They teach them. They are taught that. African American participant: This is a racist county. African American participant: So I can see that a lot of times if we don't help ourselves, it may seem like nobody else will. Participants in a Latino focus group talked about how little support they get in the US, and how the racism in the US has made them more appreciative of their own culture, and more reliant on their friends for help and support: Participant: Well, the only help I have gotten here, after being four years in the United States, has been the community college, with the English classes. I mean, even if it’s not so much, it has been good. This is the only support I have gotten on behalf of the government. Even with the churches or things like that, you don’t get support. And the same goes for the community, because from my neighborhood I only know the people who I live with. You don’t get any support from the neighborhood either. I do feel a little frustrated about all that. I don’t think it is easy to be an immigrant, because you are tied up and there are so many things you can’t do. If you go to work, you are always worried about something happening, because we are here without documents. Or if you want to go somewhere, you can’t get there if you don’t have the proper identification or driver’s license. That makes it very frustrating. Latino participant: My personal experience as an economic refugee – I don’t consider us immigrants; we are not immigrants, we are economic refugees – and my experience as an economic refugee in this country has helped me to value my own culture, and to be aware of all the racism existing here [in the United States], and all the economic difficulties that this country puts on us by not giving us any chance. We really don’t have any chances. But the truth is that as a minority, we don’t have any support. My personal experience has been finding some part of my culture, and knowing my friends – that is the support we get. That is part of my experience, to value my culture a little more, as a Latin American, as a Mexican. Getting to see how bad the racism and discrimination is here gives you a reassurance in your own values, and opens your eyes to how important the economic matters are, and the big influence they have in our countries.

42

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Finally, a participant in an African American focus group described how her work as a member of a grassroots group helped her overcome some of her prejudices towards Latinos. At the Center for Participatory Change, we define racism as racial prejudice coupled with systemic power or oppression. Prejudices between African Americans and Latinos do not generally fit this definition, because both groups are largely excluded from systemic power; nonetheless, these prejudices are significant and challenging in the US, and beginning to address them is important. The study participant commenting below implies that being together and developing relationships across race and ethnicity is a key to addressing some of the interpersonal forms of racial prejudice that we see around us. Of course institutional or systemic racism, like the US government’s policies related to recent immigrants, will have to be addressed through other means. Regardless, this story does paint a picture of how we can overcome some of our racial prejudices as individuals: African American participant: Our community center [which is run by African Americans] is working with the Latino community. And it has only been a few months since we had a meeting where we came together for the first time. And it was so awesome. Because we only see each other, the African American people and the Latino people. We see each other in the grocery store, or we pass each other in town. And we hardly look at each other. Or if you do look at them, they're not looking at you, so they don't speak, and you think, “Oh they think they're better than I am.” And you get a serious attitude, because you're thinking “You know, I'm home; you're not. So you need to be trying to be nicer to me. OK?” And I had that feeling. I had that. I did not like them. Because I thought they thought that they were just better than I am. And they were here on my turf. So when we came together here at the community center, and that hadn't been too long ago, we had a large group here that night. And we brought some of our food, and they brought some of their food. And we sat down and ate. And first of all, their food is really good. We ain't even started talking to each other yet. [Laughter] We're just eating their food. [Laughter] And I'm nudging Sally, and whispering, “Hey, is that good, is this good? How do I eat this?” And she's like, "Yeah, that’s good!” And so I'm cramming in their food and stuff. Well, we were made not to bunch up. I'm sitting here next to a young [Latina] girl, a teenage girl. So she and I had to talk to each other and communicate. And I'm like, “You know what, this kid is just like my niece.” She was a sweet little girl. And we got along so good. And I'm looking around the table, and I'm seeing that everybody's just having a good time. And everybody's talking, and they're talking the same way. They got the same problems I got. They're struggling trying to make it. We're struggling trying to make it. They feel like they're kind of being looked down on - not from me…. And we're feeling the same way. So then we find out we got a lot in common. And it was an awesome experience. And from that day on, I got rid of that attitude. And so now when I see them, I'm like, “Hey!” And they're speaking too. So the ice has to be broken. We have to come together.

43

The Center for Participatory Change

9. Immigration support. Among Latino study participants, support, help, and giving around immigration emerged as a key point. The background for this is that the United States has seen a large influx of immigrants, most from Mexico (but also Central and South America) over the past ten to twenty years. The US Census Bureau estimated that there are around 10 million Mexican-born immigrants living in the United States, with another three million or so total who were born in El Salvador, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Colombia, or other Caribbean, Central American, and South American countries. Between 1990 and 2000, data from the US Census showed that North Carolina (the state in which these focus groups took place) had the largest increase in immigrants (an increase of 274%, mostly Latino) of any state in the US. On the whole, federal and state governments have reacted to this increase in Latino immigrants with a series of punitive policies and practices (e.g., denying driver’s licenses and access to higher education to people without documents, deputizing local law enforcement to deport undocumented people, frequent raids by federal Immigration agents). As a result, support around immigration has become increasingly important for North Carolina’s Latinos. This is captured in the comments below. In the first comment, a Latino research participant talks about how her family members provide support around immigration: Latino participant: I think it is very important that we always have to be alert. Living in this country, we are always in fear of being caught by Immigration [Immigration and Customs Enforcement]. I have three kids, and I can’t help thinking, “If they send me out [if they deport me], what’s going to happen to my kids?” My sister has helped me with that. She is in touch with me constantly. She is always calling me and saying, “No problem, you can leave your place; we will take care of your kids.” It is very important for us to be in touch with everyone. Other Latino research participants talk about how friends provide support around immigration, especially when Latinos first arrive in the US: Latino participant: We also help the people who came recently from Mexico. They usually come here and they have nothing, just the clothes they are wearing, and we help them. We give them whatever we can, like clothes, food, a dollar, maybe two. We help them until they get all set and get a job. We provide orientation to the newly arriving people, trying to give them information. Latino participant: I got economic support when I first came here. People [other Latinos in the US] gave me clothes and food, and that was very special for me. Maybe in our community in Mexico we wouldn’t help each other like we help each other here. You have your family in Mexico, and you don’t have it here. It is nice to know that the same people you met there [in Mexico], people that sometimes you wouldn’t even talk to or say hi to, will support you here in a way you never imagined they could. That is very nice. Latino participant: There are also friends who help us in court as interpreters. Sometimes we speak just a little English and we are not able to understand everything, so there are people helping us with that.

10. Cultural work. Among Hmong and Cherokee research participants, working to share and preserve cultural heritage and language were considered important. For the Hmong particularly, cultural work was a major topic of conversation. The Hmong arrived in the United States in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. The Hmong fought for the US in the “secret war” in Laos during the Vietnam War; this was an effort to disrupt Viet Cong supply lines and keep Laos from becoming Communist. When the US left Vietnam, many Hmong fled to Thailand, and some were given asylum in the United States. Around 20,000 Hmong now live in Western North Carolina. The Hmong have been in the US long enough to 44

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

have a second generation, a generation that has grown up in the US. Some of the tensions between the second and first generations are evident in the comments below: Hmong participant: I want to talk about bridging the gaps. It's very important to me, because we were the first generation [of Hmong] to grow up in America, being born in America. Your parents expect you to uphold the Hmong culture, but then you are fighting to assimilate, sort of, into the American culture. And we have this clash, within our culture, where we are trying to get comfortable with the American culture and understand the American culture. But then they are pulling us back [towards Hmong culture] and we're just really confused about our identity. Hmong participant: Those of us who came from Laos, we want our children to be educated and smart [in US contexts], and this we support. But when it comes to [Hmong] culture, rituals, ceremonies like weddings, and health care: We teach them, but you in the younger generation say, “Oh, those things don't matter.” But when it's time for weddings, then you all act like you don't know about it and you forget about it and wait for us to see if we will do it or not. When we get old, if you all don't come and take over and learn, then what are you going to do after us? What we are worried about is that if you all don't learn, what's going to happen then? So that's what us older generations want you younger generation to understand. Hmong research participants talked about the importance of their shamans, and the amount of giving that goes on related to shamans’ work: Hmong participant: My husband is a shaman. He performs the weddings and the funerals. And there is a lot of time that he has to take away from his work. It’s lost income. They [Shamans] get paid for their service that they are doing. But it’s not much that they’re getting; it’s just mostly their volunteer time. Our funerals are usually three days long. They start Friday, and it’s 24 hours nonstop and it doesn't end until Sunday. It takes up a lot of time. Hmong participant: Shamans do other rituals. I'm not sure what is it called but they tie the ropes around the thing and they use Hws plis [calling the spirits]. Hmong participant: It’s called cleansing the spirit or calling the spirit back to the person. And they do the particular rituals for one particular person. Say for example, if my husband was sick for a long time, they would do a ritual, and families and friends would come and give monetary donations, specifically for the person. Hmong participant: Yeah, new babies too, like newborns. Or just celebrations. For example if a child graduates from college or high school, they'll do the ritual, it's called kiv tes, where they tie a little string around your wrist and they will give monetary donations. It is standard ritual that everyone gives money, just to support that person. Other Hmong research participants mentioned Hmong dancing, traditional Hmong dress, and Hmong language – and the giving that occurs as elders work to pass these on to the younger generation: Hmong participant: I teach Hmong dancing, because I think it’s important to preserve your culture. And the youngsters need to know more, so that in the future they will teach the next generation that comes in.

45

The Center for Participatory Change

Hmong participant: I just wanted to add that when we are teaching – whether it's a cultural thing or dancing or something like that – I have found that I feel like, “This is what I know; I want somebody else to keep this and use this to help them.” Especially the language. I want younger ones – my children or nieces or nephews – I want them to keep that [Hmong] language. And even though they speak English, what about we put that aside and let's not talk about that at this time. Let's come back and learn Hmong: “How do you say this in Hmong,” and teach them to speak, dance, and wear [Hmong] clothes. Finally, Hmong research participants talked about traditional health care, and the giving that goes on related to healing: Hmong participant: How about healthcare? I mean like maybe the coining [a traditional form of Hmong health care where a coin is scraped across the body to heal], and herbal stuff [traditional Hmong herbal remedies]? Facilitator: Coining – can you say more? Hmong participant: It's like they use a coin to rub on somebody. Also a lot of the Hmong people don't believe in western medications, due to the chemicals of the compound drugs together and the side effects. So we do grow the herbal stuff. If I was to get sick, I would go to my mother-in-law and say “I'm not feeling good. Do you have any old remedies that you might have for us to make me better?” That way I could avoid, first of all, the health care cost, and then second of all, the insurance premium goes up if you start using it. Also it's easier that way. If she knows of something, she'll give me something. And if I don't get better I go to the doctor. Facilitator: Are there particular people within the Hmong community, like your motherin-law – she knows herbs well and she’s sort of a healer? Hmong participant: Most of the basic remedies like headaches, stomach aches, and stuff like that – most elder parents, they do know what kind of remedy it is. And also the shaman can help. The shaman can get spiritual relief, and for instance if your bones are broken, they can do some kind of healing, to put your bones back together. Or if you cut your finger and they can put it back together. I've never seen it happen, but I've seen other things. They have magic; sometimes somebody is bleeding and they do something like blow to stop the bleeding. Participants in a Cherokee focus group also talked about the importance of preserving culture, through traditional Cherokee drumming and singing. Cherokee culture has recently been making a recovery in Western North Carolina, after centuries of attempts to eradicate Cherokee lifestyles and language by the United States (e.g., Cherokee children attending boarding schools were forced to wear European clothes and speak English; traditional drumming and singing were not allowed). The comments below provide a sense of how contemporary Cherokee are working to preserve their culture and language: Cherokee participant: And under the culture aspect of it: Three of us are a drum group. We play and sing on a sobriety drum, which represents healing and wellness and sobriety in the community. And also we do teaching. A while back we went to a church and played for them, to teach people from outside of our community about our singing and drumming. Last fall, we went to my son's school, and we drummed for the entire school, and explained about the drumming, what the songs meant and what the drums meant. 46

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

The drumming is all volunteer. If we get money, we donate it, or we use it to be able to do more drumming. Cherokee participant: And as far as culture, too: When my children were small, I went several times to the elementary school, and I would make up little songs. Instead of "Old McDonald," I'd do "Old McKoga", and I'd do it in the Cherokee language, all the animals. And then my kids got grown, and now I visit the elementary school for my grandson, and I do different art projects with them and read books. Cherokee participant: I know Sylvia has brought in drum groups, for anybody in the community. It's free. It's a way relieve tension and pressure. She does that every Friday. Cherokee participant: Yeah, I do this community drum every Friday. It's just a Friday thing, right after work, so people can come and whack out their frustration and go home. And I'm so burned out. I get there, and I think, “I can't believe I schlepped all these drums over here, and I'm so tired.” But once we get going, it's all gone. We sit there, sometimes for a couple of hours, until we're tired. And it's just whoever shows up; it's real informal. But it is a really powerful thing. It's just funny. It's like, “No, I can't do this.” Then once it gets started, it just goes.

11. Housing. Providing housing or shelter, or being given shelter, came up in many focus groups. This seems to be a common form of giving among rural people. It seems that many people go through a rough period where they need housing, either because they have just come to the area (most likely with Latinos) or they are temporarily in need (either because of struggles with addiction or a life transition such as the ending of a relationship). In these times, family, friends, and neighbors offer temporary shelter (for a week, a few weeks, a few months) while folks get back on their feet. In most cases, research participants had both given and received this kind of help. The comments below paint the general picture. First, two Latino research participants describe both receiving and giving this kind of help: Latino participant: When I first got here [to the US], I started working, but I didn’t have a place to stay. I didn’t know anyone. There was this lady I used to work with. She didn’t know me. She only knew me for about a week, and she told me, “You can stay at my place until you get your own place,” and she let me stay there for about three months. She didn’t know me or anything, and I didn’t know anybody. I mean, no one. And I think that if it was not for that lady, I wouldn’t be here. I would have had to go back to Colombia; there was nothing I could do. It was a little town where there were no places to stay, so I was thinking that the fact that I am here today, and the fact that I have been here for seven years, in a way it is because of what that lady did for me. Maybe for her it was not a lot, but it made a big impact in my life. Latino participant: I do that. I give people accommodation at my place. Sometimes people are looking for a place to stay when they get here [to the US], and I accommodate them for a few days. That is one way I help. Other research participants describe temporary shelter that is provided for various life crisis reasons. Providing shelter, in the ways outlined below, seems to be particularly important among the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Note that in the conversation below, some focus group participants were part of a health and wellness group focusing on recovery from addiction in Cherokee communities, hence the focus on addiction. 47

The Center for Participatory Change

Cherokee participant: On several occasions I've opened my house up to friends who needed a place to stay. And the reason I’ve done that is that I've had it done to me, several times in the past. It's not to the same people, but to me it's a way of repaying, and helping somebody who’s needing help. One time it had to do with addiction – him and his wife were separating because of his addiction, and he had no place to stay. Cherokee participant: We've done the same thing. There was one guy who didn't have a home, and he broke into a closed-up motel near here. It was snowing. It was in the winter time. And someone saw him there, and called the police. And he stayed in jail for a couple of weeks, because he was old and he had no place to go. So we got him out of jail and we let him stay with us for several months. He needed shelter, and he had nowhere else to go. Facilitator: And was this somebody you knew already? Cherokee participant: Well, I knew of his situation, but I didn't know him personally. But we've done it with others we didn't really know. I've taken people home from when I worked at Pizza Inn, years ago. They'd be stranded, and not have anywhere to go, no money or anything. And I'd take them, and give them a bed. And take them back to town the next day or something. It's common with Natives to help other people. Cherokee participant: We have a drumming group, and some of the funds from the drumming are being put aside to remodel an old house of his [another research participant’s] family's, a house for people who are addicted, so they won't be homeless. So that some of those people will have a structured place to live if they choose to come in and be sober, because we don't have a homeless shelter [in this area]. So we're just taking on the task. They tore down an old hotel, and we went down there and got all the wood from that we could, so that we could expand the house. So that's another project that we’re just taking on as the drum group. Facilitator: And so the house is one of yours, and you're just going to sort of give it over to that? Cherokee participant: Actually, it's one that I started to build when our house burned down. It's one that I never finished. I dried it in, but I never finished it. I am donating it. Facilitator: Wow. Good Lord. Cherokee participant: Actually, it's housing, but it comes from what I was telling you before, about people being in our home [sheltering people working on addiction issues in his home]. Not that I didn't want to have people, but it started to interfere with our own family. So I'd like to be able to put them in a different spot, and still be able to help them.

12. Faith and spiritual support. Many people talked about the importance of their faith. In this area of the United States, Christians are more numerous than other religions, so people generally talked about their Christian faith. Some support around faith and spiritual development came from people’s pastors, ministers, or priests and the formal work of their church, but important support also came from interactions with other members of their church. These horizontal forms of faith and spiritual support – from church member to church member – are captured in the comments below, which are taken from a variety of focus groups: 48

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Latino participant: My family attends church. And if there is a family in need of moral support, since we have a little knowledge – not much – of the Gospel, we try to support them with that. We base our support in the Bible, and we tell them not to worry, that things will get better, that we always get help from God. That is the moral support we offer. Cherokee participant: Let me talk about one thing before we end. The prayer chains haven't been talked about a lot. The church we attend now has a list of people. And if something happens, somebody's on the phone calling somebody. For example, one girl was a diabetic, and had some bad problems, and they couldn't figure out what it was, and she was in the hospital, and they had to take her to Nashville [a city four hours’ drive from Cherokee]. They put her on the prayer chain list. And we called, and people were praying for that child. When they got to Nashville, it all worked out very well for the child. European American participant: I serve on an Enrichment Committee at my church that is specific to women. And we do three things for the women in our church each year. We have a tea, or a breakfast for them without their husbands and without their children. We go on a weekend retreat. And we have a banquet where the men and the husbands of our church serve us the food. And it's all volunteer. And there's a group of us that organize it. And it's to reach out to the other women in our church.

13. Material goods. The final form of horizontal philanthropy mentioned by study participants was material goods – the sharing and recycling of toys, clothes, furniture, and so on. European American participant: What comes and goes out my house a lot, since I have growing kids, is kids' stuff. Shoes and baby equipment and toddler beds. We pass it all along. Recycling kids stuff. Hand-me-downs. That's big in this county. It’s very important. I remember when I had my first baby, people that I hardly knew gave me stuff that they didn't need anymore.

49

The Center for Participatory Change

Chapter 4 Data on Vertical Philanthropy This chapter presents qualitative data on vertical philanthropy, giving that occurs between institutions and people. There are two forms of vertical philanthropy. One form occurs when institutions give services or goods to people. Examples of this form of vertical philanthropy mentioned in the study include the services provided by churches, grassroots groups, and government agencies. A second form of vertical philanthropy occurs when people give to institutions. Examples mentioned in the study are when people give their time or money to an institution, such as a church, a grassroots group, or a school. From research participants’ perspectives, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and foundations focus exclusively on vertical philanthropy. Within churches and grassroots groups, in contrast, both horizontal and vertical philanthropy occur. Horizontal philanthropy occurs among members of a church or a grassroots group; this is mutual support based on relationships and is not directly connected to the formal work or life of the institution. But the formal work of churches and grassroots groups is also important: people benefit from the services that these institutions provide, and they give their time, talent, and money to the institution and its work. Churches and grassroots groups are both spaces within which horizontal philanthropy occurs and important spaces for vertical philanthropy. Throughout this chapter, and throughout this report, we discuss five basic types of institutions mentioned by participants in relation to horizontal philanthropy and / or vertical philanthropy: 1. Churches: Christian congregations organized around collective worship. While there are many religions in Western North Carolina, focus group participants talked about Christian churches when they mentioned congregations of worshippers. Some churches are nonprofit organizations (i.e., 501(c)(3) organizations under the US Internal Revenue Service), but many are not. 2. Grassroots groups: groups of people that organize themselves around community improvement. Grassroots groups are membership- or community-based groups, groups that have a broad base of members and whose work is largely determined by the collective hopes and goals of those members. Some grassroots groups are nonprofit organizations, but many are not. 3. Nonprofit organizations: charitable organizations that receive tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the US Internal Revenue Service’s tax code. In many countries, these are called nongovernmental organizations. Most nonprofit organizations in the US are not membership-based or community-based, as churches and grassroots groups are. 4. Foundations: a specific form of nonprofit organization in the US that focuses on making grants. In most foundations, grants can only be made to nonprofit organizations. In the US, there are family foundations, corporate foundations, community foundations, and church-based foundations. 5. Government agencies: agencies or programs developed, funded, and staffed by local, state, or federal governments in the US. Examples include agencies such as public schools and community colleges, health departments, public housing agencies, and social services departments, as well as specific programs such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The data presented below are quotations from the 12 focus groups. The data are organized by type of vertical philanthropy:

50

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

I. Vertical philanthropy from institutions to research participants 1. Money 2. Faith and spiritual support 3. Information and skills 4. Food and material goods 5. Various important services: Grassroots Latino centers 6. Important government services (such as education, health care, and housing) II. Vertical philanthropy from research participants to institutions 1. Labor 2. Food Overall, this chapter on vertical philanthropy is much shorter than the previous chapter on horizontal philanthropy, reflecting the fact that study participants talked about vertical philanthropy much less often. We explore this point more fully in Chapter 6, and discuss the implications of this finding in Chapters 7 and 8.

I. Vertical philanthropy from institutions to research participants There were several forms of vertical philanthropy where institutions (churches, grassroots groups, nonprofit organizations, foundations, or government agencies) provided money, goods, or services to people. These are laid out below, organized by type of gift (e.g., money, information and skills, other important services, and so on). 1. Money. Research participants, particularly Latinos and African Americans, reported that they receive money from their churches. This tends to be periodic, short-term gifts to cover things like rent, utilities, or bills. The comments below, taken from several focus groups, provide a sense of this: Latino participant: The church is not going to help you getting a house, but there are also other types of needs, the urgent needs. It happens; I needed money to pay my rent before. Latino participant: If I needed money I would tell Juan Carlos, because he is at the church. I would probably go to the church if I needed money. African American participant: I remember a time when I couldn't even pay my bills. And the church gave me such a large donation to pay my utility bills. So our church helps people when they need help. Helping this sort of giving happen seems to be an important role that churches play. Churches are important spaces through which gifts of money circulate. Usually this is organized as part of the church’s work, but it also tends to have an informal, person-to-person, collective feel. There were several examples of this; these two comments provide the gist of this form of informal, collective giving: European American participant: I do a lot of my giving through my church. We have a man, and he's been battling leukemia and cancer for 12 years. Two or three years back, his automobile played out on him, and he didn't have enough money to get him another 51

The Center for Participatory Change

car, so the church met, and we provided enough money for him to buy a car. Just about a month ago, the cancer he had in his jaw has returned. He's going to have surgery. And they have depleted all their savings; they didn't have any money. So our church got together the Sunday before last and we held an offering for him, and we got $2,500 to help him. African American participant: When people are sick, we always go visit, or take money, or food. We collect [take up a collection in church]. If somebody goes to the hospital, each one gets the same amount. We have someone go and visit them in their home and take them that amount. That's been going on ever since I've been going to church. We have a jar that we pass around, and it's called “Home Mission.” We pass it around every Sunday. And we take that out for things like that.

2. Faith and spiritual support. Research participants talked about how their church has provided faith and spiritual support, and that this support is important. The comments below, taken from several focus groups, provide a sense of this: Latino participant: Well, I have to say that I have found God here [in the United States], and that has helped me a lot. I have found a church, and I have joined it. And now I have gotten closer to God. At home, in Mexico, I would hear from Him, but I was not really involved. But here the church is really big, and for me it has been a great thing. It has given me a new life, and I feel very supported. Now I live happily and I trust in God. I know He can help us. Latino participant: I would say the most important aspect of my life is spiritual, which I try to always put God first before anybody, and do what I feel will please Him because that's my foundation. That's my faith. It's very important to me. And without it, I don't think I will have a real good, stable, logical sense of thinking. I don't think I would. African American participant: Well, when I retired, I got sick. I was going to be on the rescue squad, and drive that big old truck. But I had a heart attack and a stroke, and I couldn't talk and I couldn't walk. I couldn't do anything. I was down for the count. So anyway, I sat at home. I couldn't do anything. And I finally got into a Bible Study. And that gave me the incentive to live. Because I didn't want to live. I didn't want to kill myself, but I really didn't want to live.

3. Information and skills. Research participants mentioned that grassroots groups and churches provided needed information and helped them develop skills. Among Latinos, grassroots Latino centers help people learn English, navigate US systems and laws, understand their civil rights, and prepare for possible raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These comments, from two different Latino focus groups, provide a sense of the importance of local Latino centers: Latino participant: I think it is very important to address the immigration issue. This time last year, we heard everywhere about Immigration [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] coming around, and this and that. I would be in touch with Carla [a staff member at a Latino center], and she would always have information. And we were like, “If they come, then we will need to have a plan,” and we get all that information from Centro Latino. They keep us informed and alert about all this. We always have that fear, of being deported.

52

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Latino participant: For me, the classes [English classes, as part of a women’s group at a Latino center] are a big help. I have been attending those for several years. It is important for me because I feel a little more confident. I don’t speak English, but I do feel more confident when I go and buy things at a store. I feel a little more independent. It is very important. We are gaining confidence, and we are getting in touch with different people. An African American participant mentioned a financial management class that she took at her church: African American participant: For me, church is a big one, because I don't have family here. So coming to this area, a church was one of the first things I looked for. And I got a lot of help through my church, and now we're giving a lot of help as well. For example, one of the first kinds of help we got was that we took a financial class. And that was great, just coming in out of college, and all that. It was great to have that information.

4. Food and material goods. Churches were a source of food and material goods. Research participants reported both giving and receiving these kinds of resources from churches. The comments below were taken from several focus groups Latino participant: We have gotten lots of help from several churches. We have gotten clothes, toys, food. We have gotten help from many people – American people who help us whenever they can. Latino participant: With the farm workers coming to harvest the tomatoes – we realize how unfairly they are being treated. We go to the places where they live, and we try to help them. We offer religious services or bring people who can provide them with medicines, clothes, food. They are not specifically people from the church. African American participant: One time we were at church, and were just finishing Bible Study. This was a few years ago. This lady and guy came in and said that they needed food. My husband and I, and the church, helped. We went and got food and took it over to this place. We don't know whether they were pulling our legs or not, and we didn't really care.

5. Various important services: Grassroots Latino centers. Latinos reported that they received various important services – such as access to health care, English lessons, filling out paperwork, and help finding jobs – from local grassroots Latino centers. Latino participant: Sometimes the center [a grassroots Latino center] helps us. For example, since getting dental care and all kinds of health care is so expensive, they include us in programs or check-ups. They help us to schedule the medical appointments, when we can’t because of the language. They also help with the medicines, with translation and interpretation. Latino participant: When we want to do something, since we don’t speak English or we don’t understand, we go to Centro Latino [another grassroots Latino center], and Roberta or Bonita help us with our problems or with getting us an appointment with a doctor or getting us transportation or whenever we need something at home. They help us a lot.

53

The Center for Participatory Change

Latino participant: In my case, I came and asked Roberta for help. I needed help filling out the paperwork for our children’s passports. And Roberta helped me a lot with that. I am very grateful for Roberta, because she helped me with that. Latino participant: Now that I don’t have a job, I can’t do anything, because there is nothing for me. I have come to Centro Latino and asked Roberta, “Do you know of any job?” and she is like, “No.” She helps me with filling out applications. I went to the hospital the other day, and they told me, “You have to fill out the application on a computer.” I don’t know about computers. How am I supposed to do that? But I thought that Roberta might know, and she helped me. And I thought that was so good – and I even told her, “Thanks for offering this kind of help here.”

6. Important government services. Research participants talked about many other important kinds of services, such as education, health care, and housing. These services were provided by government agencies – schools, community colleges, health departments, and housing agencies. In general, these services were much appreciated and important, especially among Latinos. Education: Public schools. Schools were viewed as particularly important and helpful. Latinos found US schools to be helpful. In Mexico, where many Latinos came from, many quality schools require tuition, and there is no transportation. The fact that US schools are free, with transportation provided, was much appreciated by many Latinos. Latino participant: The schools here are helpful, because in Mexico we had to pay for school, and I don’t have to pay anything here. [Laughter] Latino participant: Yeah, the school is helpful. Latino participant: School is a real help, and the bus – the transportation is helpful as well. Latino participant: Also my son’s school. Latino participant: I get lots of help at the school too. Latino participant [whose son has a developmental disability]: I never thought that I was going to be sitting at a table with Americans, having this big language barrier. I never thought they would provide an interpreter so I would be able to explain my child’s needs. And they [school faculty] were available – they were devoting their time to us, to my son and my family. They wanted to figure out what was the best way to help us, and they were offering all kinds of help. We were getting medical help, school help, emotional help, psychological help. They offer so many kinds of help here, help that unfortunately we can’t find in our own country. And if you find it, it is only for those who have money. Schools also emerged as a source of community pride and community building in a European American focus group. European American participant: As a relative newcomer here, when I was starting to have a family, I was impressed with how embraced children are in this community. Our children are valued here, and loved. The minute they show up at Kindergarten, and are

54

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

welcomed into the schools, there is a real loving community. And it's agencies, but it's also just that people value children here. European American participant: What she’s talking about is something that I have a special connection with too - the school system, and most of the teachers. They really care. And they nurture that child. I'll have to tell this story about Elizabeth [another research participant]. I travel a lot with my job. And Elizabeth was the principal at the Primary School when my son was in second grade. And Alvin [the speaker’s husband] teaches right above there at the high school. And so one afternoon I got back to Asheville and my cell phone rings, and Elizabeth says, “Anna, everything's OK. [Laughter]. James is here with me, but he's getting a little concerned, because it 6:00 and everybody else has been picked up from after-school. [Laughter] Now I'm still here working, and it's fine with me.” [Laughter] And I said, “I'm in Asheville; it'll take 30 minutes to get there. Please don't call DSS [Department of Social Services].” [Laughter] And on the other side, I was thinking, ‘I'm gonna kill Alvin Barton [her husband].’ [Laughter] I said, “I'm gonna try to get ahold of Alvin, but chances are he's on the football field with the marching band and he's not gonna answer, so please don't call DSS.” In one sense I was embarrassed, and I was ready to kill my husband, but on the other sense I knew that my child was safe. I had grown up with Elizabeth; there was an understanding between us. European American participant: It is a special community. Just this week my son, who is in first grade, thought he had lost a school book. And he has the sweetest teacher in the world. But he had lost his school book, and he was terrified of facing this teacher. She's the nicest teacher in the world, and he's such a good kid. I came to school to talk to the teacher about this book that we thought had been lost. And it's just a short way from the school door to his class. And the hall monitor told me, "Thomas really had a hard morning." And I went into the office to sign in, and they said something. Around 10 people, from just walking 50 steps, told me that Thomas had had a really bad morning. And they all knew about it. I'm sure he told everybody. [Laughter] I came home, and I called my Mom, and I said, “This is an amazing place. Here's this relatively insignificant problem that Thomas is facing for the first time, and it was honored, and he was listened to.” It just made me feel so good to be here. Education: Community colleges. Community colleges were also viewed as important, especially among Latinos. Latino participant: Another way we get help is with the English classes we can get here. The Community College gives those for free. It is such a big help. They really try hard to help us. I got a lot of help from the Community College. The English I speak – the little English I speak – I learned it there. I learned it for free, and that has helped me to improve myself. Latino participant: You can also take computer classes there. And the GED [General Educational Development test, the equivalent of a high school diploma].

55

The Center for Participatory Change

Health care: Health departments and Medicaid. Latinos also found services and supports around health care to be important. Latino participant: I think that the Health Department [local county-based government health agency] is an important place where we can get help. They may charge us the consultation or things like that, but they are very helpful. Sometimes we have an emergency and we don’t know where to go – even with a medicine or something simple, they always help. Latino participant: I have gotten lots of help through Medicaid [medical assistance for low-income citizens]. My daughters have Medicaid, and it has helped me with my family’s hospital expenses. It has helped me paying the doctor’s appointments and the medicines. I get a big help there. Latino participant: In certain occasions, and depending on the type of emergency, they [hospitals] get to help you, and I say this because I have the experience. I went to the hospital, and I got a surgery; since it was an emergency, the government helped me. It was a – I don’t remember what is the name – but they helped me so I didn’t have to pay anything, since it was an emergency, and I don’t have the income to pay for that kind of surgery, they helped me by paying the whole amount of the surgery. I got an $11,000 bill, and I wondered how I would pay for that. And someone says, “We are going to help you, because this was an emergency.” You say, “Thanks,” you know? The only thing I had to pay was the last appointment I had with the surgeon. Housing: local government housing agency. One focus group took place in a public housing community. Residents of this community receive free or reduced housing from the government, and the local Housing Authority oversees this housing. While this form of giving from the government is appreciated, residents also felt that the Housing Authority made the process of receiving this kind of help degrading. The comments below suggest that it is important to consider not only the form of help received, but also the way in which the help is offered or provided. African American participant: I'm in [public] housing, okay? I don't pay rent, but I got this huge gas bill. And then if I need something fixed in my house, I got this other bill I got to pay. I'm like, “Wait a minute. Hold on. How is this supposed to help me here? How is this supposed to help me get ahead? I'm poor, and this is low-income housing here.” European American participant: Or look, I tell them, “I don't have no money, no job.” Some people get free housing. But I have to pay. And if I didn't have the money to come here, I'd be outdoors. Then where am I gonna go? Look at all those [homeless] people. There's hundreds right now in the shelters. African American participant: Well, that shows we’re in a system where they don't care about us. All they want is money. You ain't got that, they're gonna kick you to the curb. Housing [the local Housing Authority] don't care about nothing but that. You don't come up with that rent, you’re out. There's gonna be a whole lot of people in the cold, honey, with children. African American participant: It's degrading. European American participant: It's very degrading.

56

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

African American participant: And there are some [in the Housing Authority] that will make you feel that way when you go there. They will make you feel about an inch tall when you go there.

II. Vertical philanthropy from research participants to institutions There were two forms of vertical philanthropy where people gave to institutions (churches, grassroots groups, nonprofit organizations, foundations, or government agencies). These are laid out below. 1. Labor. A few research participants talked of giving their time to churches or grassroots groups by working in various ways. The comments below are taken from two different focus groups, and paint a general picture of this form of giving: Latino participant: We just helped make a church improvement. We all helped. We all wanted to do it; it was not like we had to. We painted the church. Cherokee participant: I give my time to the church whenever I can, helping the pastor with the food pantry [at the church]. I pick the food up. I use my vehicle, and I drive her to pick the food up and take it to the food pantry. And some landscaping around the church, and mowing the yard. Two African American women describe their work cooking for a summer program at an African American community center: African American participant: And we have a program here in the summer time for the children. And LeAnn and I volunteer and come in and feed the children. African American Participant: Big commitment. Biiiiiig commitment [Laughter] African American Participant: We come in and fix breakfast and feed the children and make lunch for the children and a snack for later, after we're gone. African American Participant: Then we clean up. Don't forget the cleaning up part. African American Participant: Yeah, we do. And it's not easy. It's hard to do.

2. Food. One participant described buying, cooking, and bringing food to an event sponsored by a grassroots Latino center: Latino participant: The other day we had a Posada [a Latino Christmas celebration] here. Rosa called me and said, “We are having a Posada, do you want to bring something? Whatever you want.” And I said, “Yes, I am going to bring some tamales.” And I brought my tamales.

57

The Center for Participatory Change

Chapter 5 Data on Motivations for Giving This chapter presents qualitative data on why people give. In the 12 focus groups that we conducted, this was usually the last question asked, and it often received less attention than questions focusing on who gives and what is given. While these data are not as complete as the data presented in the previous two chapters, the data that we have are worth reporting. Several reasons for giving emerged from the focus groups we conducted: · Giving is based in reciprocity. · People give because they have a passion for giving. · People give because it is their mission in life. · People give and help when they trust the people they’re helping. · People give because of relationships. · Some Latinos say that giving is different in the US than it is in Mexico. · People give because if they don’t help each other, nobody will help them. · People give because it eases stress. · People give because giving leads to personal growth. · People continue to give even though it exhausts them.

Giving is based in reciprocity. Research participants reported that the main reason they give is because others give to them. When we are in relationships with people we care about, this giving and receiving happens naturally. Sometimes this reciprocity is direct: One person helps another person, because they care about that person or because that person has helped them in the past. Sometimes it’s indirect: People help whoever needs it, figuring that it’s the right thing to do, or that it will all come back around and they’ll get help from others later on when they need it. The quotations below start to tell the story of this reciprocity. First, an African American research participant talks about reciprocal giving within a family: African American participant: My mom and dad do a lot for my family. So now it's my turn to give back to them a little bit. Because they've done a lot for us. With family, it's like an ebb and flow. It's like sometimes you're giving, sometimes you're getting, and the roles reverse quite often. Here Latino research participants talk about reciprocity related to giving within Latino communities. Latino participant: We help because we have gotten help. I think we all have had the experience of getting help. Latino participant: Yeah, you have to be grateful. You get help; now you will help too. Latino participant: Why do I help? Whenever I see someone who needs my help I feel bad if I don’t help. I always do what I can. That’s it. And I have gotten help too, and 58

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

that’s why I help. I help because I feel like helping, and I also remember the way that many people have helped me. They have helped me in many ways. Latino participant : It works both ways: The way you behave with people is the way people are going to behave with you. So maybe if you help, of course not intending to get anything in return, it will come back to you, sometimes twice as big. And you don’t help thinking, “I will help so I can get help,” or “I will give so I can get.” You just give with an open heart and you will get it back the same way. Latino participant: It will come back to you. Latino participant: Perhaps not with the same person you helped, but with someone else…. Latino participant: We always need help from others, right? Even though sometimes our pride doesn’t allow us to ask for favors, we always need help from others. Sometimes we can even get more from people who don’t belong to our family than from our own family. Latino participant: When I came to this country, I realized that people come here not knowing anything, but we do get help from many sources. So when I got help, I realized that I needed to help the people who needed help. So I got involved with this center [a Latino center], also at church, at work, and I think this is our mission. If we have gotten help, we need to learn how to be humanitarian, and walk the same path. We need to learn – if we got something today, why not give twice as much tomorrow? I think that is our mission. That is what we need to know, to be reciprocal. That is the most important lesson. Cherokee research participants discuss reciprocity in their communities, which they see as linked to larger interconnected networks that can potentially stretch forward for generations. Cherokee participant: Giving and helping have a strong effect on us. It helps our relationships build within the community. It lets people know that there are people out there who are able to help them and willing to help them. And they're not going to have to put anything out to receive the help, when they're in need. And I think that's important for people to know. It has a profound daily effect on people around us. Everybody is interconnected in some way. What one person does can have an effect on the whole community, whether it's a positive or a negative effect. Whether it's Alice helping a person get on their feet, or whatever - that person may down the road be able to help another person get on their feet. Everything we do today will have an effect on seven generations beyond us, whether it be positive or negative. That's something we need to keep in our thought processes, and our daily living - that it has such a profound effect on the future, whatever we do today. Cherokee participant: That brings back what I was talking about while ago - most of it being vice versa [or reciprocal] for me. The "why" of it, for me, is that I've experienced the need of needing the help, and having people help me. And now helping - it just makes me feel good that I can give back to somebody else that needs it. There's been more than one occasion that I needed help. And these two ladies here, and my brothers on the drums - they've helped me when I really needed it. And there's been other ladies in the community who aren't here; I could never give them enough thanks for what they've 59

The Center for Participatory Change

done. There was a time when me and my fiancé separated, and we were going through a custody battle - we've dropped that, and we're together now - but at that time I was a single parent with my son who was 18 months old. He's four now. And there was a lot of help they gave me. I could have never made it without it. I could never give them enough thanks. So that's one way that makes me feel better - by helping others. One Cherokee participant noted that reciprocal giving occurs among Cherokee because it’s part of their history and culture, part of who the Cherokee are as a people. Cherokee participant: I think it’s just in the Native people to do things for one another. In our culture, back in the day, they lived in clans, different clans. And that clan was like a community. It wasn't just one family building a garden here and one family building a garden there. It was one big garden that supported the whole people, and everybody worked together, knowing that everybody had to eat. And when they hunted, all the men hunted together, and it was to feed the whole clan, not just to feed one family. That's where the interconnectedness comes from. The comments below, from two different focus groups, describe how people often get as much as they give from acts of giving in their community. This is a different form of reciprocity, not so much giving because people give to you, but giving and receiving simultaneously, in the same act. European American participant: I got involved in this center [a family resource center] through volunteering. And even though I was helping, it also gave to me. I was in a situation where there had been some changes in my life, and I had some health issues. And I was given far more by volunteering than I ever felt like I gave. So when I look at volunteering, it's kind of a two-way street. There's a lot of emotional support involved, and empowerment, and things like that as well. African American participant: It seems my lot or my task is to see about some sick and shut-in in the community, and particularly the elderly. I do a lot of that. But I find it rewarding, because we don't have a lot of elderly people in the neighborhood anymore. When I say "elderly", I'm a senior myself, but I mean like 80 or 90 year old. So when I go to visit them, it's sort of like sitting on their knee, and hearing those stories of old, that you just don't hear every day. So I'm giving. I take them food, I prepare them food. I find out what their special foods are, what they will eat. I run errands: I run to the grocery store, or pick up their meds, or whatever. But then in return, I'm receiving from them because they are telling me the stories of old, and encouraging me. As somebody your senior, they can encourage you much more than you can encourage them, although they're sick, and some of them are bed-ridden. I follow them. If they have to leave their home and go to a nursing home, then I follow them there. Because we've embraced each other. But even when I visit them in the nursing home, they are still saying those things to me that will encourage me that I can't hear from my peers necessarily. So it's a give and a take. You give and you get back. Finally, the comments below, from a European American focus group, provide some concrete examples of reciprocity in their rural mountain community.

60

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

European American participant: My husband is a Physician’s Assistant. We had neighbors down the road from us who used to come up and bring their children and grandparents. And they were quite poor. They wanted to avoid trying to go to the medical center, with those costs. So they would bring the baby by so my husband could look at her ears, or ask my husband to come down and look at the mother, the very elderly grandmother. They'd ask, and then they'd leave, and Bob would do what he could. And we'd come home the next day and there would be a bag of tomatoes on the front porch, or something from their garden, which was all they had. But they gave it so generously. They really felt that exchange. European American Participant: I get that when I translate [and interpret] stuff for people. I've had the Latino women want to give you everything. They want to cook you everything. One time we had to clear everything off, because the man came in for lunch, and he cooked, and I had to eat. And there is that generous spirit. It's across this whole western area that we live in.

People give because they have a passion for giving. Participants in an African American focus group talked about giving because they have a passion for giving. For some, that passion comes from their faith in God. African American participant: Well, I think that we can’t do any of this [helping work] without having that passion. It's nothing that you can force yourself to do. You just have to have it in you to do it. If somebody says, “Sarah, go down to the center [a local community center] and work 400 hours a week.” And I'm like, “No.” But if it's in me to do that, then it's easier because it's rewarding, and it's fun. It's hard work. But you get, like Catherine said, a lot more than you give. But I think the thing is that you have to have it in you. It's nothing that can be forced. African American participant: I agree. And I've been in touch with people who suggested that you have to be involved in the community, and it was like they were guilting you into doing something. So I believe that passion is important. It took me a while to find something. When you're connected, nobody has to pay you, nobody has to call and ask you. You just do it. Because you love what you do. And of course, we can talk a lot about, “Well, I gave this and I didn't get back.” But when you're working on your passion, that stuff doesn't even matter. So I think that's the key. African American participant: And you have to have compassion for God, just like He has compassion for us. I help people. My neighbor comes to me, and says, “I need to build a shop. I don't know how to lay it out. I don't know nothing. Will you come and help me?” I retired, and said I wasn't going to do nothing else. But when you got it in your system to help somebody, you can't turn nobody down. We should all be like that, and lend a helping hand. African American participant: It's like the saying, “Who is your neighbor?” Not just the ones who live right beside you. Whoever you meet. Whoever you see. Whoever you come in contact with. That is your neighbor. And what does the Bible say? Love thy neighbor? We should do that. But it's hard to do that if we don't have the compassion 61

The Center for Participatory Change

that Christ had. You got to have it down on the inside. Not from the lips out. Not from the head. But from the heart.

People give because it is their mission in life. Another comment relates closely to seeing giving as rooted in passion. One research participant gives because she feels that giving is her mission in life. Latino participant: There is something I remember from this doctor that would attend my oldest daughter. He was an allergist, and he was in Mexico. He was humble-looking, and he had a great intellectual capacity. He had these vivacious eyes, and an honest soul. He would talk to the kids with great love. He looked into my eyes and said, “Your beauty lies in your eyes,” then he smiled and looked at my daughter, “Hello, precious, how are you?” And he said something that left me thinking, and even now I still think about it. He said, “We came to this world to serve one another.” I always remember that. And I think this is the mission that people should never forget.

People give when they trust the people they’re helping. Participants in a European American focus group talked about the relationship between giving and trust – that we give most in situations when we trust the people to whom we’re giving, but that it’s hard to give when that trust isn’t there. European American participant: Well most of the time in your neighborhoods anymore, there is so much violence going around that people don't trust other people. That's a real big difference. And if you don't trust somebody, you won’t help them. That's a big deal. European American participant: For example if you're driving down the road and you see somebody walking – in years gone by, you would stop and offer that person a ride. But now, especially for me as a female, I would be hesitant to do that unless it was somebody I knew. European American participant: You can see somebody broken down on the side of the road, and you want to help them, but you kind of get leery. You're afraid somebody is going to pull a gun and shoot you or rob you or whatever. And that happens. European American participant: I know I was stranded. It was a while back. My car broke down. It was about 10 degrees. Snow on the road, ice everywhere. And I walked down to this store. And people were coming in, and I would say, "Hey look, I'm going this way, are you headed that way?" And a lot of people wouldn't even look. They just throw their head up and walk on by. I stayed in that store for like six hours. So finally this old guy said, "C'mon. I ain't going that way, but c'mon." He wouldn't take any money. For me that tells me that out of 100 people, there's 1 person who will actually help you out. And it's a trust issue. That's what it is. You can't blame them. I'm the same way. European American participant: You turn the news on, and every day somebody's getting hurt or shot. Inside the schools. It's just trust, that's all. European American participant: Fear. Fear. Big fear. The issue of trust came up in a Hmong focus group too. Many Hmong have come to the US from Laos, and have been in the US since the early 1970s. Laos is a long way from the US, so family relationships across that geographical distance may not be as strong as they once were. 62

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Communication is difficult. As a result, trust among family members is not as strong as it once was. A Hmong research participant describes how this relates to giving, particularly giving money to family members. Participant: We would like to help other people, and if it's giving money to them, we would like to do it too. But then it's just in the matter of trust. Are they really going to use that money to help themselves to progress more and to move to a better life? Because I do hear back in Laos, I know that they would call over here to America, to the Hmong families in America, to ask for money. Like about $500, $600, and then we would say, “We would like to help and all, but we don't have money ourselves.” Because we do not have money ourselves. We are struggling the same as they are. And then they're looking for us to support them as well. I guess it's just because probably there is no trust. Because they are over there [in Laos]; they might be related to us, but we just don't really know what's going to happen with the money. I guess you just have to trust each other more, and that comes with communication.

People give because of relationships. Research participants reported that they give most to people they know, and people they know best. Giving is based deeply in relationships. The comments below, from a Latino focus group, illustrate the importance of relationships in giving. Latino participant: Well, in my case, I help my family because I have never liked the family being apart. I think it is very important to keep my family united. The most important thing for me is my family. In any situation, my family comes first. Latino participant: Friendship is another reason we help. Latino participant: There is something that has been very important for me, a phrase that goes, “You get to know your friends when you are sick or you are in jail.” Life teaches us lessons, and I have learned to value and to keep true friends. They are very scarce, but when you find them, you have to take care of that friendship by being grateful and returning the favors. We need to be able to tell people that we love them, and that we are grateful.

Some Latinos report that giving and helping is different in the US and Mexico. In one Latino focus group, participants talked about how giving differs in the US and Mexico. There are several major points in the conversation below: that US agencies provide services without requiring payment first or without asking anything in return; that there is a culture in the US (but not in Mexico) of giving without expecting anything in return; and that people in the US (compared to people in Mexico) seem more attuned to caring for animals and for nature. Latino participant: What I have learned throughout my life is that my country and this country are like two different worlds. The human integrity should be first anywhere, but we have gotten so much help here from the people and the organizations. Just to mention some of them – when somebody is sick here, that person gets the necessary help, without asking first if the person will be able to pay for it or not. They deal with that later, but the human integrity comes first. They also help us with the education, and you can get it regardless of your race or any organization you belong to. First thing here is providing the help, and the economic aspect is secondary. There are also organizations that we don’t know about – organizations in hospitals or schools. For 63

The Center for Participatory Change

example, sometimes if a person has to pay a very expensive bill, there are some discounts, and we don’t know where those are coming from. They just hand us out some paperwork and after filling it out you have to wait to see if you will get a discount or not, but usually they always help with something. And when you require an education, they give it to you without any problem. Latino participant: I have experienced all that, and I have experienced it in Mexico and also here. I got free education in Mexico. I got free medical services as well. But I didn’t get those because I asked for them. I got them because it was my right to get them. I worked in a place that would give the workers those rights. It is different here. I don’t need to have those rights here. Just because I am sick, I can go to a hospital, and they treat me first – in my country, before treating you, it is like, “Do you have money?” So these are two different cases. Latino participant: I would like to emphasize what he is saying. People in Mexico always want something. If you are giving something, you are always expecting something in return. For example, when the election time comes, they are like, “I am giving you free groceries. I am going to give you this; I am going to give you that. But you have to vote for this party.” They are always expecting something. There may be organizations offering help there [in Mexico], but they always want to get some profit. That doesn’t happen in the United States. This is a country with lots of organizations, and they don’t look for any profit. They are entirely free, and I think that is a big difference between Mexico and the United States. Latino participant: When she was saying that in our country everybody is looking for a profit, I remembered that one of my teachers [in Mexico] told us a story. He said that a man was walking through the market, and he was carrying two buckets – the way they used to do it in the old days, with a stick across the buckets. He was selling crabs. He would sell the crabs from one bucket for $5.00 and the crabs from the other bucket for $10.00. A woman approached him and asked him, “Why are you selling these for $5.00 and these ones for $10.00 if they are the same size. They look the same.” And he said, “Yes, but I sell these cheaper because I don’t have to watch them. They watch one another. And these ones are more expensive because I have to watch them.” “Why is that?” He said, “The cheapest ones are Mexican, and the other ones are American.” And she was like, “How come?” And he said, “When the Mexican crabs realize that one of them is getting out the bucket, they pull its leg so it will fall. They watch one another. That’s why they are cheaper. These ones are more expensive, the American ones. Whenever they realize one is going up, they push it, and they form a little ladder so all of them can escape.” The thought is that people support each other here. It doesn’t matter if they are your family or not or if you are going to get anything in return or not. It is not like that in Mexico. That’s why that teacher told us that story. Latino participant: There is something else that I think is great here [in the US]. We get to see about it in Walt Disney’s stories – the stories about fairies, princesses. I think we live a little of that here, with the animals. Unfortunately, in our country, we are not used to taking care of nature or animals; the contamination is greater every day.

64

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

I think it is very nice – it is even amusing to see how the traffic stops if there are deer or chickens or birds crossing [the road]. Last week we were laughing because these turkeys were crossing the road, and a guy who was driving a big truck would help them to cross, and they [the turkeys] would walk back onto the road. He would help them again, and they would walk back onto the road. And all the traffic was stopped, but nobody would cross, because they [the turkeys] were still crossing.

People give because if they don’t help each other, nobody will help them. An African American participant stated clearly that people give to one another within African American communities because they realize that if they don’t help one another, nobody else will. African American participant: Well, most people think that philanthropy is rich people giving away money all the time. But people in the community do philanthropy through the things that they do. And truly in the African American community, people have always been philanthropists to one another, because we've always had to be helpful one to another, because we didn't have that outside support like other groups did, so we had to do things within our own community.

People give because it eases stress. We might think of giving as something that adds stress to our lives: We have to get this done to help this person, then something else to help another person, and so on. However, one respondent said that giving relieves stress, perhaps by relieving the guilt or stress that one would feel if one were not helping others. Hmong Participant: I think one thing that is very important is stress release. If you know that somebody needs help, and you don't try to help that person, you sort of put the stress on yourself. You go and say, “I'm thinking about you or your family,” or you just say, “What do you need? Do you need any help? Do you need cooking? Do you need anything?” If you don't go and ask somebody that, you'll be thinking, “I have this to do, but I think the other thing [helping others] is more important, so why don't I go and help them?” And if you're not helping them, then you are putting the stress on yourself. But if you actually go and help them, then you say, “Let's take care of them first, and I'll do mine later.” So you release your stress right there!

People give because giving leads to personal growth. One research participant talked about how giving was central to his vision of his own personal growth and development. Cherokee participant: I was just thinking on the "why" of it [why people give]. For myself, it's personal growth, and giving back in the community. …Because that helps a person grow spiritually and as a person. There's some personal growth that happens when you give. It just feels good, to be able to help others who are not able to help themselves but need help. It's not for personal recognition, or pulling on your own chain. It's part of a human trait, that makes us feel good inside when we can help someone else. There's a lot of volunteering that goes on, and most of it is heartfelt. We don't do it for recognition; it's just because people need help.

People continue to give even though it exhausts them. Despite all these reasons for giving, some participants talked about how exhausting and taxing the work of giving can be. And yet, people keep going; we all keep giving. 65

The Center for Participatory Change

Cherokee participant: Well, I'll just be honest. Sometimes I get really irritated. Sometimes it bothers me when my phone rings. And it rings all the time. Sometimes I'm like, "God, I wish they'd just leave me alone." But once I answer it, and the voice on the other end says, "Hey Alice...." It's all gone. It was that old devil talking to me. And he does. And I have to talk to the Great Spirit a whole lot harder next time. Cherokee participant: I have the same problem. I keep saying, "I'm so tired; I'm not going to do this anymore." And then the next thing happens and I'm like, "OK, I'll keep going."

66

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Chapter 6 Data Summaries from Focus Groups In this chapter we present summaries of the data above generated by participants in the focus groups. During each focus group, we asked participants to list categories of giving and helping related to the questions, “Who gives to you and to whom do you give?” and “What is given in these exchanges?” We then asked research participants to prioritize categories on the “who” and “what” questions. These prioritizations are presented below. These data provide an additional sense of how research participants viewed the relative importance of different forms of giving in their daily lives, particularly who gives and what is given. Prioritization from focus groups: Relative importance of who gives and what is given Data from this study suggest that most giving occurs among family members, friends, and members of the same church or grassroots group. Emotional support, money, information, labor, spiritual support, and food were some of the most common forms of giving.

Who gives. During each focus group, we asked participants to list out categories of giving and helping related to the questions, "Who helps you, who do you help; who supports you, who do you support; who do you work with to make things better?" We listed out various categories of people or organizations related to this “who” question on flip chart paper. When focus group participants had thought of all the categories they could, we asked them to prioritize among the categories. We asked participants to look across the categories and choose the three to five that are most important in their daily lives in terms of giving and support. We then went through each category, and asked people to raise their hand if that particular category was among their three to five most important categories in terms of who gives and to whom they give. The results from this process are summarized below. The numbers below signify the percent of all research participants who raised their hand when asked if a particular category is in their top three to five categories in terms of importance for their daily lives. Category for “Who gives”: Who gives to you? To whom do you give?

Percent of research participants who listed this category as one of their 3 – 5 most important

Family

77 %

Friends and neighbors

73 %

Churches

50 %

Government agencies (public schools, Community Colleges, Health Departments)

47 %

Grassroots groups

46 %

Workplace (bosses or co-workers)

32 %

Nonprofit organizations (that aren’t either churches or grassroots groups)

17 %

Self

12 %

67

The Center for Participatory Change

What is given. During each focus group, we asked participants to list out categories of giving and helping related to the question, "What sorts of things are you giving and getting help or support around with these folks?" We listed out the various categories of gifts related to this “what” question on flip chart paper. When focus group participants had thought of all the categories they could, we asked them to prioritize among the categories. We asked participants to look across the categories and choose the three to five that are most important in their daily lives in terms of giving and support. We then went through each category, and asked people to raise their hand if that particular category was among their three to five most important categories in terms of what is given or received. The results from this process are summarized below. The numbers below signify the percent of all research participants who raised their hand when asked if a particular category is in their top three to five categories in terms of importance for their daily lives. Category for “What is given”: What is given in these exchanges?

Percent of research participants who listed this category as one of their 3 – 5 most important

Emotional support, listening

76 %

Money

76 %

Information

44 %

Labor (e.g., working, cooking, cleaning house)

43 %

Spiritual support / prayer

41 %

Food

40 %

Caregiving (for kids, people who are ill, elders)

36 %

Advice

33 %

Transportation / rides

33 %

Cultural work (e.g., teaching kids Hmong dances)

28 %

Time

28 %

Clothes

26 %

Relationships

24 %

Accommodation / shelter

14 %

Interpretation / translation

14 %

General skills

12 %

Connections

12 %

68

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Chapter 7 Interpretations of the Research Findings In this chapter we try to make sense of the data presented in Chapters 3 through 6. We explore how these data inform our understanding of horizontal philanthropy (giving within social networks) and vertical philanthropy (giving based in institutions).

1. General interpretations and reflections The data from this study suggest that in the communities in which we held focus groups, horizontal philanthropy is more relevant, important, and effective than vertical philanthropy.

A. Summaries of the data. We begin this section with some descriptions, conclusions, or summaries that we consider to be evident in the data. The points below seemed to us to be strongly supported by the data, and our summaries in this section are simply restatements of what we think would be apparent to anyone reading the data presented in Chapters 3 through 6. In Section I.B., we move beyond what is evident in the data and lay out some interpretations that are more speculative or exploratory; in this section, however, we stick more closely to themes that appear to us to be obvious in the data. Section 1.A. is a series of summaries of the data; Section I.B. is more of a series of interpretations of the data. Horizontal philanthropy is more important than vertical philanthropy. Research participants reported that in their daily lives, there is much more horizontal philanthropy (giving among people within communities) than vertical philanthropy (giving to and from institutions). They also said that horizontal philanthropy is more important, rich, and varied. This difference is clear in the stories: The horizontal philanthropy stories are numerous, rich, human, and real; the vertical philanthropy stories, in contrast, are fewer in number and less rich. It is worth noting that Chapter 3, which focuses on horizontal philanthropy, is much longer than Chapter 4, which focuses on vertical philanthropy. In addition, the data summaries in Chapter 6 make it clear that friends and family members are clearly the most important sources of giving and receiving. It is clear from the data that vertical philanthropy is important: the first table in Chapter 6 shows that around half of all research participants viewed churches and / or government agencies (both of which have vertical philanthropy components) as one of their top three most important sources of giving. Research participants ranked vertical giving institutions as important, but they didn’t really talk much about vertical philanthropy when they told stories of the giving that touched their lives. So while vertical philanthropy is important, the data, taken as a whole, show that horizontal philanthropy is more important. Generally the data from this study suggest that horizontal philanthropy is a crucial part of research participants’ everyday lives; vertical philanthropy may provide important support or services, but it is less likely to touch their lives as deeply. Horizontal philanthropy is rich in form and significant in impact. Research participants mentioned many forms of horizontal philanthropy; indeed, when we opened up a space for conversation about giving, the conversation naturally focused on forms of horizontal philanthropy. People talked about giving among friends and neighbors, family members, or members of a church or grassroots group. And every form of giving mentioned by research participants as being important (e.g., emotional support, money, information, labor, spiritual support, food, caregiving, advice, transportation, cultural work) was given through horizontal philanthropy, through networks of friends, family members, and members of churches or grassroots groups. Finally, data from research participants suggest that horizontal philanthropy in all of its variety has significant impacts on people’s lives; they talked about horizontal philanthropy a great deal, and they repeatedly stressed the importance of these forms of giving in their lives. 69

The Center for Participatory Change

Vertical philanthropy is narrow in form and limited in impact. There were two forms of vertical philanthropy mentioned by research participants: (1) when institutions give services or goods to people, or (2) when people give their money, time, or talent to institutions. The data in this study suggest that both of these forms of giving are relatively narrow in form and limited in impact. Examples of the first form of vertical philanthropy mentioned in the study include the services provided by churches, grassroots groups, and government agencies. Examples of the second form of giving mentioned in the study are when people give their time or money to an institution, such as a church, a grassroots group, or a school. Research participants talked about these forms of vertical philanthropy, and they were important – but they talked about these forms of giving relatively infrequently. And while some forms of vertical philanthropy were mentioned as important among some groups of research participants (e.g., Latinos mentioned the importance of government services like education and health care), people generally did not mention forms of vertical philanthropy as important in their lives. Research participants did not view vertical philanthropy negatively; rather, they seemed to see it as less relevant and more limited than horizontal philanthropy. Horizontal philanthropy occurs among people who know and trust each other. Research participants reported that horizontal philanthropy occurs within their social networks, among networks of people who know and trust each other. The most important of these social networks are family networks and networks of friends. Of secondary importance, but still important, are networks that exist among members of the same church and members of the same grassroots group. Horizontal philanthropy is based on pre-existing relationships. It appears that the closer these relationships are (e.g., family members, close friends), the more likely it is that mutual giving and support will occur. Vertical philanthropy occurs between people and institutions. As mentioned, vertical philanthropy occurs when institutions give services or goods to people, or when people give time, talent, or money to institutions. The primary institutions mentioned by research participants were churches, grassroots groups, and government agencies. People also mentioned their workplaces as institutions through which they receive support, but they said nothing significant about workplaces during the focus group conversations. Research participants rarely mentioned the services of nonprofit organizations other than churches or grassroots groups (many of which are not nonprofits). Research participants did not mention foundations at all. In sum, vertical philanthropy occurs when either institutions give to people or people give to institutions, and the significance of that giving varies widely between different types of institutions. Based on the data, we can rank giving in order of importance. Overall, the data from this study suggest an ordering of importance around giving, with the more important forms of giving at the top of this list and the less important forms at the bottom: · Horizontal philanthropy based in social networks emerging out of one’s family or friends; · Horizontal philanthropy based in social networks emerging out of churches or grassroots groups (e.g., giving among members of one’s church or members of grassroots groups, outside of the church’s or group’s formal work); · Vertical philanthropy to and from churches or grassroots groups (e.g., services or goods received from one’s church or a grassroots group, giving one’s money or labor to one’s church); · Vertical philanthropy received from government agencies or programs (e.g., health care and education); · Vertical philanthropy received from foundations or from nonprofit organizations that are not churches or grassroots groups.

70

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Some institutions are seen as focusing on vertical philanthropy; others foster both vertical and horizontal philanthropy. Research participants view some institutions (particularly government agencies and nonprofit organizations) as focusing primarily on vertical philanthropy. Such institutions, especially government agencies, may provide much-needed services through their vertical philanthropy. Other institutions (particularly churches and grassroots groups) foster both vertical and horizontal philanthropy. These institutions provide much-needed services, but they are also spaces through which relationships among members of the institution develop into friendships. These friendships are the seeds from which horizontal philanthropy naturally blossoms. To make this concrete, imagine a woman named Jane, who is struggling with a significant health issue and having financial problems as she tries to cover medical costs. For various reasons, Jane does not meet criteria for government aid. Her church as an institution may write a check to Jane’s family to help cover health care costs through a “home missions” collection or pool of money. This is vertical philanthropy – giving from the church as an institution to Jane and her family. Yet imagine too that Sue Ellen knows Jane through church, and Sue Ellen comes over and does a lot of work helping Jane recover from her surgery. Sue Ellen cleans Jane’s house, cooks food for her, reads books to her, prays for her, and just listens to Jane as she tries to deal with her pain and suffering. Sue Ellen does all of this work not as part of any formal church program, but as a friend. This is horizontal philanthropy, giving within social networks – but the relationship on which this giving was based was developed through shared membership in the church. Community-based institutions like churches and grassroots groups are institutions that foster both vertical and horizontal philanthropy; as a result, these are the institutions that seemed to be most important in research participants’ lives. Research participants rarely mentioned giving by the nonprofit sector. We define the US nonprofit sector as organizations that have a 501(c)(3) designation as a nonprofit organization with the Internal Revenue Service. This sector is made up of charitable organizations and foundations. In this study, people talked a lot about churches, grassroots groups, and government agencies. Government agencies are clearly not part of the nonprofit sector. Some churches and grassroots groups are nonprofit organizations, but many or not. Most churches and grassroots groups in the US are membership-based or community-based; most nonprofit organizations and foundations are not. In the US, nonprofit organizations and foundations that are not community-based are important; they do a great deal to improve the well-being of people, families, and communities. But in this study, research participants rarely mentioned receiving goods or services from nonprofit organizations that are not community-based, and they did not mention foundations at all. Nor did they mention giving to or from nonprofits that are not community-based. The nonprofit sector was not viewed negatively; rather, it was not really mentioned. We do not know why nonprofit organizations and foundations were so rarely mentioned in the study. Is it because research participants do not view nonprofit organizations’ programs and services as giving? It is because the impact of these programs and services are not relevant for this particular sample of research participants? Is it because research participants might be ashamed to admit in a public conversation that they receive services from nonprofit organizations? Is it because working class people are not the typical donor and volunteer base targeted by most nonprofits, so their own donations go to family, friends, and churches? We found it notable that nonprofits and foundations were rarely discussed in the focus group conversations; however, the lack of data gives us little direction on how to interpret this result. Research participants mentioned more intangible gifts than tangible ones. The most common forms of giving or support identified by research participants are intangible. When we think of giving, we often think of things like money or food – things we can touch or count, things we put in our wallet or in our bellies. But research participants focused more on things like emotional support, caregiving, information, and labor – things that we all rely on, but we can’t really see, touch, or quantify. The most important forms of giving mentioned by research participants (in prioritized order) were emotional support, money, information, labor, spiritual support, food, caregiving, advice, transportation, cultural work, and so on. Intangible gifts are mentioned more frequently than tangible gifts. And while both are viewed as important (e.g., money is one of the most important gifts), there are more intangible gifts at the top of the 71

The Center for Participatory Change

prioritized list. When research participants talked about forms of giving, they tended to talk a lot about things that we cannot touch, like emotional support, information, labor, and caregiving. There are similarities and differences in giving across social networks. Looking across the data presented in Chapter 3, we saw several patterns in giving related to types of social network. For instance, based on research participants’ comments, it appears that the mutual sharing of money, food, caregiving, and transportation circulate primarily among family members, friends, and members of churches, but not so much among members of grassroots groups. It appears that the mutual sharing of emotional support and labor happen across all social networks that people mentioned (i.e., family, friends, church members, members of grassroots groups). It appears that support around immigration is shared mostly among friends and family, whereas support around racism is shared among friends and among members of the same grassroots group. Finally, research participants reported that cultural work and housing were shared primarily among friends and neighbors, and faith and spiritual support was shared primarily among members of the same church. In general, it seems that the form of the giving often follows the nature of the relationship: spiritual support between fellow church members; support around racism among members of a grassroots group, where racism is more likely to be a focus of the work; and many varied forms of support between friends and family, where the relationships are closest. There are similarities and differences in giving across institutions. Looking across the data presented in Chapter 4, we also saw several patterns. Based on research participants’ comments, it appears that people receive information and skills from both churches and grassroots groups. It appears that people receive money, faith and spiritual support, and material goods primarily from churches, and that they give their money and labor to churches. People report that they receive support around racism from grassroots groups that they are involved in, and that they receive several important services (e.g., education, health care, and housing) from government agencies. Again, the form of the giving seems to follow the nature of the relationship with the institution: churches ask for a reciprocal relationship and offer many varied forms of giving, while government agencies are organized to provide a specific service under specific conditions. There are similarities and differences in giving across race and ethnicity. Finally, we saw some similarities and differences related to race and ethnicity as we looked across the data in Chapters 3 and 4. Based on research participants’ comments, it appears that money, emotional support, gifts of labor, information and skills, and food are all generally shared across all racial and ethnic groups in this study (i.e., African Americans, European Americans, Latinos, Hmong, and Cherokee). Mutual support around racism was explicitly mentioned as being important in African American, Hmong, and Latino focus groups. Mutual support around caregiving and transportation was mentioned more explicitly in African American, European American, and Latino focus groups than in other racial or ethnic groups. Support around faith and spiritual development was mentioned explicitly in both African American and Latino focus groups. Mutual giving around cultural work was mentioned explicitly in both Cherokee and Hmong focus groups. The sharing of housing among friends and family was mentioned explicitly in both Cherokee and Latino focus groups. Not surprisingly, mutual support around immigration was mentioned only in Latino focus groups; although the Hmong too are immigrants, they came to the US as political refugees and were granted citizenship status. Finally, the benefits of US government services were also mentioned most explicitly in Latino focus groups, largely, it seems, because they stand in contrast to the services participants experienced in their native countries. While we did not specifically explore these patterns in the focus groups, it seems evident that some forms of giving address needs that are common to all of the racial and ethnic groups, while other forms of giving address needs that are more specific to certain groups, based on their particular cultural identity or their particular political and economic history in the United States. B. Interpretations of the data. As mentioned, we view the points above as summaries of the data presented in Chapters 3 through 6; we view the points above as evident or apparent when looking across 72

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

the data. In contrast, the points below are interpretations, readings, or analyses where we, as researchers, use our conceptual framework and researcher biases to make sense of the data. These points may not be evident to people who come to the data with a conceptual frame or set of biases that differ from ours; thus some readers may disagree with the points below. Compared to the points in Section I.A., we recognize the points in Section I.B. may be more speculative, exploratory, tentative, or provisional. Nevertheless, we thought it was important, given that we have spent a lot of time reflecting upon these data, to present our interpretations and analyses. Non-monetary gifts seem to be as important economically as gifts of money. Research participants mentioned money as an important resource that is given and received. But giving and receiving money is not the only way to improve people’s lives financially. Research participants stated repeatedly that intangible gifts are as important economically as tangible gifts, even money. As one example, a Latina research participant talked about her mother taking care of her children while she works. This Latina research participant may not be a US citizen; if this is the case, she lacks access to many governmentbased support systems (e.g., income support, child care subsidies) for people living in poverty. She does live in poverty. She said she makes $250 a week cleaning houses. She looked into daycare for her child, and it was going to cost $160 a week, plus around $50 in gas to get her child to and from daycare. That’s a total of $210 of her weekly income of $250 going to childcare. Her mother’s horizontal philanthropy – the help in taking care of her children – is essential to her ability to earn an income for her family. Other examples of this emerged repeatedly in focus group discussions: people sharing transportation to cut costs, people helping out with friends struggling with illnesses (when home health care or hospitalization would be too expensive), or people sharing housing when somebody is struggling and on the brink of homelessness. There are many ways to help economically; giving money is only one. Non-economic gifts seem to be as important as economic-focused gifts. Many of the forms of giving mentioned above – such as money, caregiving, transportation, and housing – have some basis in economic life, in people’s attempts to get ahead economically. Other gifts – emotional support, spiritual support, cultural work, and support around racism – are less clearly linked to people’s personal economies. And yet these forms of giving are very important. Research participants listed emotional support as the most important form of giving (along with money). Spiritual support from friends and family was also seen as very important. Cultural work, support around racism, and support related to immigration were seen as important for certain groups (Hmong, Latinos, Cherokee, African Americans). It appears that these various non-economic forms of giving are as important as gifts that help people get ahead economically. Racism is important in relation to horizontal philanthropy. In general, racism came up frequently in focus group conversations. In the US, we typically think of racism being a Black-White issue, but Hmong and Latino research participants emphasized their experiences with racism as well as African American participants. People stated explicitly that supporting each other around racism was an important form of giving. We also interpret Latinos’ focus on supporting each other around immigration (e.g., helping friends and family prepare for a possible raid by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) as a response to a racist system, a system that discriminates against Latinos because of their ethnicity, language, culture, and immigration status. The basic points seem to be that systemic and individual racism is a powerful force in the lives of people of color, that people need to come together to support one another around the racism that they experience, and that this mutual support around racism is an important form of giving. Most research participants do not mention US government entitlement programs as gifts, with the exception of participants who are recent immigrants. When research participants talked about the programs and services provided by government agencies, they seemed to have differing perspectives on whether or not these programs and services were considered part of ‘giving’. Interestingly, it was Latinos who most clearly viewed government programs as gifts. Most Latinos participating in this study are newly arrived in the US. In their home countries, most did not have access to programs like Medicaid, 73

The Center for Participatory Change

Food Stamps, and tuition-free quality education. Although many lack the documentation to benefit from most US government programs and services, their children (if born in the US) are often US citizens and therefore are entitled to many of these services. When we read the data, we speculate that to some Latinos, who haven’t benefited from services or programs like the US government programs in their home countries, the services provided by government agencies feel like an important gift. To long-time US citizens, however, it may be that these programs are viewed as entitlements rather than gifts. Indeed, the programs discussed in the section on government agencies are all classified as entitlement programs by the US government – they are programs (Food Stamps, Medicaid, Federal Housing Assistance, public education, and so on) that US citizens (and in some cases, non-citizens as well) have a right to if they meet certain criteria or qualifications. They are programs that we all pay for with our taxes; even undocumented immigrants, who cannot access these services, pay taxes that go to these services. US citizens may feel that since they pay for these services, they are therefore entitled to the benefits of these programs when they need them. Thus to long-time US citizens, it may be that these entitlement programs are perceived as rights, as benefits that people have paid for and expect to be able to access, while to recent immigrants, it may be that these programs are perceived as gifts. In addition, the way the services are provided may impact how those services are perceived. For example, the public housing residents experienced their interactions with the Housing Authority as uncaring and degrading, in contrast with the exchanges they did identify as ‘giving,’ which were friendly, reciprocal, and mutually supportive. Systems of vertical philanthropy are often set up in a way that does not allow givers and receivers to interact as human beings. It is clear from the data that horizontal philanthropy is based mostly on relationships, and that much of the value of giving comes from those relationships. Within vertical philanthropy institutions, however, it is always difficult, and sometimes discouraged, for such relationships to form. This would mean, for example, that front line workers at a nonprofit organization or county Department of Social Services would have to take the time to build authentic relationships with their clients. However, to be responsible stewards of their resources, nonprofit organizations and government agencies usually require front line workers to serve as many people as possible, which means that these workers do not have the time to develop relationships with their clients. In addition, often the only time that front line service providers see their clients is when the clients are in crisis; front line workers may at times feel like the client is struggling personally, is feeling relatively powerless, and may be perceived as bothering or trying to deceive the line worker. Taken together, these reflections suggest that systems of vertical philanthropy can function in a way that does not allow givers and receivers to interact as human beings. Systems of vertical philanthropy often dehumanize givers (the front line workers in public agencies or nonprofits) as well as receivers. It may be possible to create a vertical philanthropy system that humanizes both givers and receivers, but it would require a change in philosophy and a shift in the priorities of how to use time and resources. This interpretation seems to be borne out by the fact that the vertical giving institutions that were reported to be most important are churches and grassroots groups, both of which intentionally foster relationships among members and with the institution. Horizontal philanthropy may sometimes be an indicator that vertical giving institutions aren’t working well. It seems to us that several stories of horizontal philanthropy in Chapter 3 could be viewed as responses to vertical philanthropy systems that were somehow failing to meet the needs that they were designed to address. For example, a painter told a story of how he cut his hand in half. The message he heard from the medical system was that he would never be able to paint again; the message he heard from his family was that he would indeed regain the use of his hand. Today he is a painter, and it was his family’s support that got him there. Another example, also related to health care, is the emphasis in the Hmong focus groups on traditional Hmong health care practices. We view these not only as vibrant examples of cultural preservation, but also as a sign that US health care practices and institutions are not working completely well for Hmong people. A similar example comes from a Cherokee story, where a woman was helping a family whose home had burned down. They tried to get some food for the family through the tribal services, but it was not nearly enough. The woman had to spend $200 of her own 74

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

money on food and go through her house for extra kitchen equipment for the family whose house had burned. All of these examples seem to be ones where the services of mainstream vertical giving institutions failed to meet the needs they were created to address, and horizontal philanthropy became important at least partly in response to that failure of vertical giving. It may be that people use support from vertical philanthropy when they cannot access support from horizontal philanthropy. Our research team reflected on the relationships between horizontal and vertical philanthropy. Broadly speaking, the data seemed to indicate several points about how horizontal and vertical philanthropy interrelate. First, it appears from the data that people begin with systems of horizontal philanthropy when they seek help or support. Horizontal philanthropy, giving among friends and family, seems to be the first place where needs are met; seeking help from vertical giving institutions is secondary. Further, it may be that people seek and receive help from vertical giving systems in three circumstances: (1) when they don’t have strong horizontal giving networks in place (e.g., when they have few friends or family, when they are not members of a church or grassroots group, when they have just moved to a new place); (2) when they have tapped out all of the resources available to them in their networks of friends and family; and (3) when they need a kind of support or level of support (e.g., surgery, formal education, permanent housing) that may not be available within their networks of friends and family. These ideas are provisional and require further study; nonetheless, they do help clarify the ways that horizontal and vertical philanthropy appear to intersect, and the relative importance of each in its own sphere.

2. Comparing and contrasting horizontal and vertical philanthropy There are many differences between horizontal and vertical philanthropy, including differences in diversity of gifts, connections between giver and receiver, motivation, reciprocity, power, accountability, and rules and bureaucracy.

This section compares and contrasts horizontal philanthropy (giving within social networks) with vertical philanthropy (giving based in institutions). We compare these two forms of giving on several variables. We base some of the ideas below on the analysis by Susan Wilkinson-Maposa and her research team in The Poor Philanthropist (2006). Other ideas emerged from our study. The details of our analysis are presented below, but an overview of the major points is presented in Table 7.1. Table 7.1: Comparing horizontal and vertical philanthropy Definitional concept

Horizontal philanthropy or Philanthropy of Community

Vertical philanthropy or Philanthropy for Community

Diversity of gifts

Rich diversity of gifts: emotional support, money, information, labor, caregiving, support around racism, etc.

Primarily two types of gifts: money and services

Connections between giver and receiver

Giver and receiver usually know and trust each other and have given and received from each other before

Giver and receiver usually do not know each other; the connection is professionalized and distant

Integration into social worlds

Integrated into the fabric of society, into people’s daily lives

Usually disconnected from or cut off from people’s daily lives

Motivation for giving

Reciprocity, co-operation, mutual obligation; doing with

Charity, patronage, altruism, generosity; doing for

Reciprocity

Gifts are naturally reciprocal; there may be an expectation that gifts made will

There is no expectation that the giver will later receive or the receiver will

75

The Center for Participatory Change

be reciprocated or returned in some form at a later date

later give; this allows the giver to feel non-needy and superior

Power

Power between giver and receiver is generally balanced, although there may be interpersonal power imbalances

Power imbalances exist between giver and receiver, both interpersonally and systemically

Empowerment

Defines people by their assets and capacities, by how people can work together to meet goals that they set for themselves

Defines people by what they need or lack, by how people can be helped by goods or services that meet their needs

Dependency

Based on interdependence: givers and recipients are both dependent on each other’s help to get by and get ahead

Can be based on dependency: recipients may become dependent on givers’ help to get by and get ahead

Rules and bureaucracy

Access to help characterized by informal, fluid, evolving interactions, agreements, and negotiations among friends and family members

Access to help characterized by strict, inflexible rules and paperwork, waiting in offices, and meeting some set of criteria for receiving help

Accessibility and responsiveness

Help around any issue can come from many sources and is usually quickly and easily accessed

Help around a particular issue often comes from one source and requires negotiating rules and bureaucracy to access

Accountability

Givers and receivers are accountable to each other if giving is done poorly or causes harm, because they are part of each others’ lives

Givers are not accountable to receivers; there is little recourse for receivers if giving is done poorly or causes harm

Diversity of gifts. Research participants reported that there are relatively few types of gifts given through vertical philanthropy, whereas there are many more diverse and numerous types of gifts given through horizontal philanthropy. When discussing vertical philanthropy, people talked primarily about two types of gifts received: money and services. They received money from churches, and various kinds of services from churches (e.g., spiritual development), grassroots groups (e.g., information and referral), and government agencies (e.g., health care and education). In contrast, research participants reported receiving far more diverse and numerous types of gifts through horizontal philanthropy among friends and family: emotional support, money, information, labor, spiritual support, food, caregiving, advice, transportation, cultural work, housing, support around racism, support around immigration, and so on. Research participants reported receiving a much broader variety of gifts through horizontal philanthropy as compared to vertical philanthropy. Connections between giver and receiver. In vertical philanthropy situations, the original giver and receiver are usually unknown to each other, unless the vertical philanthropy is coming from a communitybased institution like a church or grassroots group. In government agencies, nonprofit organizations, or foundations, the financial support for the giving comes from an unknown source – from taxes that fund the work of government agencies or donations that fund the work of nonprofits and foundations. Some person – a front line worker at a government agency, a teacher, a nonprofit staff person, a program officer at a community foundation – is involved in most acts of vertical philanthropy, and these people personalize the act of vertical philanthropy. But these people are not philanthropists; rather, they are paid workers doing their job. The giver may be connected with the receiver, but that connection is generally professionalized and distant. Again, the exceptions are community-based institutions such as churches 76

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

and grassroots groups, where vertical philanthropy may be based in rich interpersonal relationships and friendships. In horizontal philanthropy situations, nearly all giving is based in rich interpersonal relationships. Giving is based in mutual trust and relations of reciprocity. People know each other, trust each other, and have usually given and received from each other before. In this case, it is easy for a receiver to give critical feedback to a giver, because giver and receiver are enmeshed in each other’s social worlds. In the case of vertical philanthropy, critical feedback and sanction by the receiver is limited. Overall, then, horizontal philanthropy has a stronger personal and interpersonal base than vertical philanthropy. This stronger personal and interpersonal base may make horizontal philanthropy more sensitive or responsive. For example, sometimes others’ needs are clear. If a friend has a baby or their house burns down, we respond. Other needs are subtler. If a friend experiences depression and needs help, we may not see that unless we are in an ongoing and meaningful relationship with that person. In sum, horizontal philanthropy is based on stronger interpersonal connections between giver and receiver than vertical philanthropy. Integration into social worlds. Horizontal philanthropy is integrated or embedded in the fabric of society. Giving among friends and family is deeply enmeshed in the warp and weft of daily life in local communities. We give among friends and family naturally; it’s simply what we do as people. Vertical philanthropy, on the other hand, is not nearly as integrated or embedded in people’s daily lives, relationships, and interactions. Vertical philanthropy is often (but not always) disconnected from people’s daily lives and their most immediate and important relationships. Further, in horizontal philanthropy, a person engages in giving and receiving with their whole self in a way that is not possible in vertical philanthropy. When we give through networks of family and friends, we generally can bring our whole selves to the giving and receiving – our faults, our strengths, our racial identity, our immigration status, and so on. These aspects of our whole selves are generally unrecognized, irrelevant, or disregarded in many vertical philanthropy situations. Motivation for giving. The motivations and values that define vertical philanthropy are typically charity, patronage, altruism, and generosity. Horizontal philanthropy is more typically motivated by reciprocity, co-operation, and mutual obligation. These different motivations color acts of giving. At their core, vertical philanthropy is rooted in doing for others, whereas horizontal philanthropy is rooted in doing with others. Reciprocity. This contrast between doing for (vertical philanthropy) and doing with (horizontal philanthropy) relates to reciprocity, and reciprocity relates to power (see below). Reciprocity is based in mutuality: I give to you, and later you give to me (or somebody else in our network of friends and family gives to me). Most horizontal philanthropy is reciprocal giving; most vertical philanthropy is nonreciprocal giving. In vertical philanthropy, the giver makes a gift without the expectation of a return gift. The gift comes from charity or altruism, not reciprocity, co-operation, or mutual obligation. Most horizontal giving occurs as part of the natural unfolding of caring relationships; this form of reciprocal giving and receiving is simply what we do as people. Sometimes in horizontal philanthropy, gifts may be made out of duty or obligation. I may give, even if I don’t want to, or even if I don’t like a particular person, because I know that there will come a time when I will need help, and because mutual giving is our collective responsibility. In sum, horizontal philanthropy is grounded in mutuality or reciprocity; vertical philanthropy is not. Power. At their core, vertical philanthropy and horizontal philanthropy differ in the ways that power plays out in each form of giving. Systemic or institutional power takes three forms: visible power (gained by participation in institutions and institutional decision-making), hidden power (gained by excluding some people from institutions and institutional decision-making), and invisible power (gained by shaping people’s “common sense” understandings of the issues to be discussed and decided by institutions) (Gaventa, 1980). In vertical philanthropy, all of these forms of power are imbalanced or asymmetrical: The giver holds power, and the receiver generally lacks it. It is the giver who participates in the decision77

The Center for Participatory Change

making of the institution doing the giving. In the case of nonprofit organizations, foundations, and government agencies, the giver (the institution) typically excludes the receiver (the person in need) from participation in decision-making about giving. It is also the institution that defines the frame through which giving occurs: defining receivers as clients rather than people, and defining receivers as needy rather than people who can shape their own future. Horizontal philanthropy, in contrast, is based in more symmetrical power relations. Friends and family members may differ in power in many ways (e.g., gender and race), but that power is not institutionalized in a particular giving relationship. Power may differ interpersonally in horizontal philanthropy situations, but not institutionally or systemically. Empowerment. Empowerment is defined many different ways, but it generally relates to the distribution and use of power. We use a definition from empowerment research: “Empowerment is the process and product of realigning power so that people can direct their individual and collective destinies and better their lives” (Pennell et al, 2005, 622). In general, horizontal philanthropy is more empowering than vertical philanthropy. The goal of vertical philanthropy is often meeting people’s needs, giving them what they lack. Vertical philanthropy defines people by what they lack or what they need, by what services or goods they require. Horizontal philanthropy, in contrast, is typically focused on helping people accomplish their goals, goals that they have set for themselves. It is built on people’s assets and capacities. Horizontal philanthropy recognizes that people are resourceful, powerful, interdependent, and able to meet many of their own needs by working with others. Horizontal philanthropy generally upholds people’s humanity and dignity. It is as much about sharing our joy, happiness, and abundance as helping to meet each other’s needs. It is about sharing our grief, pain, and sadness too. It is about sharing our whole selves and our lives, not only our needs. Horizontal philanthropy is about working with people we care about to build the individual and collective power we need to make our lives better. Dependency. Another point related to empowerment is that vertical philanthropy can potentially create dependency. Receiving gifts through vertical philanthropy can be a temptation. Because there is typically not an expectation that I give back in vertical philanthropy situations, there may be the appearance that I am getting something for free (even though nothing is really free). It is tempting, easy, and comforting to take it, although taking it may erode my dignity. Horizontal philanthropy, on the other hand, is based on interdependence and reciprocity. As a result, there is likely less opportunity for dependency. I may think twice before accepting something from a friend or family member, because I know I may always have to give back. Rules and bureaucracy. Formal rules and bureaucracy are a characteristic of vertical philanthropy, but absent from horizontal philanthropy. Some vertical philanthropy situations come with rigid, even forbidding, rules and regulations and a bureaucracy of workers who enforce them. To receive services from many nonprofit organizations or government agencies, people must fill out significant amounts of paperwork, wait in long lines for appointments, and meet strict selection criteria. While these rules and bureaucracies are understandable and necessary, they do highlight a contrast with horizontal philanthropy. With giving among friends and family members, there are few legally binding rules and regulations. There might be agreements (e.g., we agree that if I give you a ride on Wednesday, you’ll give me a ride on Friday) or expectations (e.g., I will help you when you’re recovering from surgery, because I expect that you’ll help me sometime down the road when I need it). There is always a cost when one receives something from someone else. With horizontal philanthropy, we have some choice over the cost associated with gifts we receive. We are able to negotiate with friends and family (often our equals in power) the favor that we will give in return for the gift we have received. With vertical philanthropy, we do not get to choose the costs associated with the gift. These costs include required paperwork, long waits, and bureaucracy that we are forced to navigate. As we fill out the paperwork and navigate the bureaucracy, we may lose self-confidence, become battered down, feel denigrated, or lose some of our basic human dignity. The ability or sanction to make rules and enforce them through bureaucracy is a hallmark of power.

78

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Accessibility and responsiveness. Because horizontal philanthropy generally lacks formal rules and bureaucracy, it is typically more accessible and responsive than vertical philanthropy. First, horizontal philanthropy is more accessible than vertical philanthropy. With horizontal philanthropy, there are many more doors in to receiving help or support. Friends, family members, members of my church, members of my grassroots groups – any of these people could see a need that I have and respond. And I don’t need to fill out burdensome paperwork or wait in long lines or meet strict criteria to access the help; all I need to do is ask my friends and family. With vertical philanthropy, there is usually one door into receiving help or support – the intake or entry system that a vertical giving institution has established. Horizontal philanthropy is also typically more responsive than vertical philanthropy. Since I have many more doors in to receiving help or support, and since I don’t need to fill out paperwork or wait in lines to access the help, I can usually get the help or support I need quickly and easily. Horizontal philanthropy is also able to respond to more varied needs than most vertical giving institutions. From my friends and family I can get emotional support, loans of money, rides to my child’s doctor appointment, support around racism, help with cooking, and so on. Most vertical giving institutions concentrate on one form of help or support. To access more than one form of help, I have to engage in multiple sets of rules and regulations and multiple bureaucracies. Horizontal philanthropy is part of the natural flow of our relationships with the people we care about. This gives it an accessibility and responsiveness that vertical philanthropy lacks. Accountability. Horizontal philanthropy also has a natural, built in accountability that vertical philanthropy lacks. When I give to my friends or family members, I know that I had better give with humility rather than arrogance or superiority, because I know that sometime soon I may have needs and I may be asking them for help. I am accountable to my friends and family, because I will be seeing them regularly. If I mess up with my giving, I risk doing harm to my most important relationships. In horizontal philanthropy, there is mutual accountability among givers and receivers. This is not the case with vertical philanthropy. For receivers in vertical philanthropy situations, especially when a giving institution is not community-based, there is very little recourse if the giving is done poorly or causes harm. When giving goes from an institution that is not community-based to a recipient, that recipient can usually do little if he or she is dissatisfied with the gift or the way the gift was given. To make this more concrete: Clients of nonprofit organizations or government agencies can often do little to affect the way that these institutions give; they can do little to express dissatisfaction with services or goods received. There is little that a receiver can do if services or goods are shoddy or inadequate, or if they are delivered in a way that is degrading or humiliating. There are few ways that individual receivers can hold institutions accountable for their giving. This difference in accountability – high mutual accountability in horizontal philanthropy, almost no accountability in vertical philanthropy – relates to the power imbalances between giver and receiver at the base of vertical philanthropy.

79

The Center for Participatory Change

Chapter 8 Implications of the Research Findings This chapter outlines some implications of the findings from this study. We begin by laying out a few broad assumptions that the data from this study challenge. We then outline some tentative implications of the findings for the practice of vertical philanthropy, for institutional giving carried out by churches, grassroots groups, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, or foundations. We then discuss some implications for future research. We close this chapter with some overall conclusions about the study as a whole.

1. Broad implications: Assumptions that these data challenge The data from this study cause us to rethink many assumptions that we have about philanthropy. Some of these assumptions are outlined below.

As we reviewed and interpreted the data from this study, we realized that there are several assumptions about philanthropy that these data challenge or contradict. The assumption that wealthy people are philanthropists and that people in low-wealth communities are recipients of philanthropy is misleading. Conventional definitions characterize a philanthropist as a person with wealth who gives money (donations) or time (volunteerism) out of charity or altruism to an institution that serves people in need. This definition of philanthropy has several characteristics: the giving typically occurs through a nonprofit organization, a church, or a foundation; it comes from outside of a marginalized community; there is no expectation that the receiver give back; and the giver and the receiver come from different worlds and may not even know or see each other. This form of giving is vertical philanthropy, giving from institutions to people, giving from people with wealth to people in need. In our study, research participants rarely mentioned this form of vertical philanthropy. Instead, people reported that by far the most important form of philanthropy is horizontal philanthropy, giving based within social networks of relationships and trust. This form of philanthropy comes from within a community; it is based in reciprocity, co-operation, mutual obligation, mutual trust, and mutual support; and the giver and receiver have strong ties of family or friendship and are part of each other’s everyday lived worlds. And while money is an important gift passed within these networks, other gifts such as emotional support, caregiving, information, and labor are equally as important. The assumption that philanthropy is one-way, voluntary, and based in charity is inaccurate. This relates to the overall point above. We typically define philanthropy as vertical philanthropy, as a person with wealth giving money or time to an institution that helps people in need. The giving is one-way: There is no expectation that the receiver give back to the giver. It is voluntary: The giver gives because he or she wants to, not because he or she is obligated to give. And it is based in charity: The giver gives out of compassion, pity, or altruism for people who are needy or less fortunate. While this form of giving certainly exists, research participants mentioned it rarely. Most of the giving described as important by participants in this study was horizontal philanthropy, giving within networks of friends and family members. Horizontal philanthropy is reciprocal rather than one-way. Friends and family members give to one another because that’s simply what we do when we live in relationships with others. We want to give, because we care about others; we are glad to receive as well. Horizontal philanthropy is based on reciprocity, mutuality, and co-operation. It can also be based on shared duty or obligation. Friends and family members may at times feel obligated to give (whether they want to or not), because people they care about need them (and the relationship requires that they help), and because they have received help from others in the past (and that obligation of having received in the past requires that they help). In sum, the data from this study suggest that the assumption that philanthropy is one-way, voluntary, or based in 80

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

charity is misleading; most philanthropy is reciprocal, based in relationships of co-operation and / or obligation. The assumption that philanthropy is the giving of money is limiting and narrow. This relates to the two points above. Most current conceptual definitions of philanthropy in the US focus on the giving of time, talent, and money. In practice, however, when people talk about philanthropy, they often fall back into using the giving of money as the default definition. Most work within and around institutional philanthropy focuses on the giving of money for the common good. The data from this study affirm the importance of giving money; it was one of the two most important forms of giving (along with emotional support) highlighted by research participants. However, the data from this study paint a much richer picture of giving than even a broad definition of philanthropy usually includes. Money is important. Time and talent are important. But equally important are gifts of emotional support, information, labor, caregiving, advice, transportation, shelter, support around racism, and so on. Philanthropy as it is practiced in communities is much richer than is typically understood. The assumption that the most important forms of philanthropy are planned and organized needs to be challenged. We often assume that the most important forms of giving, the giving with the most significant impact, are planned, organized, and predetermined. We assume that the giving that really matters for people is the large-scale giving that goes on through institutions. People volunteer with or donate money to nonprofit organizations, and those organizations have an organizational structure, a board of directors, staff, funding sources, carefully drawn plans, set programs, and predetermined outcomes. People give money to community foundations, and those foundations pass them on to the nonprofit organizations. These foundations also have organizational structures, boards, staff, funding sources, plans, programs, and outcomes. Government agencies have similar structures and systems. Vertical philanthropy is resource intensive and professionalized; it takes a lot of time and money to plan and organize this form of giving. While this kind of giving is important, the data from this study suggest that naturally-occurring, unstructured giving is more important. The most important forms of giving seem to be gifts that pass organically among friends and family. These forms of giving just happen, as part of our daily lives. It’s simply what we do as people. It’s part of the fabric of our lives, as long as our lives are intertwined with the lives of others. Horizontal philanthropy, giving among friends and family, takes a certain amount of planning and organization. But the amount of resources required to plan and organize horizontal philanthropy (a phone call or two, perhaps) is insignificant compared to the amount of planning and organization that goes into giving through foundations or nonprofit organizations. In sum, the data from this study show that our most important forms of giving are those that occur naturally as part of our daily lives; they are relatively unplanned and unorganized. The assumption that philanthropic work is primarily done by institutions needs to be rethought. This assumption relates to the one above. We often assume that most giving is done through institutions. To a certain extent, this is reflected in the data from this study. Some institutions, especially churches and grassroots groups, are important sources of giving. Others, such as government agencies, are fairly important for research participants’ daily lives. Still others, particularly foundations and nonprofit organizations that are not community-based, were rarely mentioned. Giving between institutions and people defines vertical philanthropy. However, the data from this study suggest that all of these forms of vertical philanthropy are less important than horizontal philanthropy. Our data suggest that from the perspective of the poor and working class people in this study, giving is primarily the work of networks of friends, family members, or members of the same church or grassroots group, rather than the work of foundations, nonprofit organizations, or government agencies. The assumption that mutual support among friends and family is insignificant is incorrect. As we have begun to share our findings from this study with others, various people have responded by implying that giving among friends and family is nice enough, but that it can never have a large-enough scale of impact to be significant at the macro level. The implication is that all of these small instances of mutual 81

The Center for Participatory Change

giving – I give you a ride into town on Tuesday morning; you pick up my kids from school on Thursday afternoon – are small, isolated events that don’t add up to much. The additional implication is that significant change for the common good occurs through giving that is planned and organized: projects, efforts, campaigns, or programs planned and carried out by foundations, nonprofit organizations, or government agencies. While we don’t have any data on the relative impact of horizontal philanthropy and vertical philanthropy, the data we do have suggest that participants in this study view horizontal philanthropy as significantly more important than vertical philanthropy. The small acts of giving occurring among friends and neighbors, taken individually, may not seem like much. However, the impact is multiplied by first considering the frequency of such acts (giving and receiving help were reported to be a part of daily life, and an individual might be part of several such exchanges at any given time). That impact is multiplied again by the number of people involved – potentially millions of people, if the patterns we found hold true for similar populations of people across the United States. As the data on unpaid work and remittances in Chapter 2 make clear, this multiplier effect takes micro-level gifts of ‘help’ and scales them up to have macro-level, global economic impacts. Based on the data we found in the study, we believe horizontal giving is having a similar (although largely invisible) macro-level impact on housing, food security, psychological and emotional assistance, transportation, child and elder care, labor, health care, and the other forms of giving mentioned in the study. The assumption that wealth is defined in economic terms tells only part of the story. Wealth literally means well-being. We typically define this well-being in financial or economic terms: our income, the houses and cars we own, maybe investments such as stocks or bonds. But the findings of this study point to a broader definition of wealth, one that is based in horizontal philanthropy, in social networks based on trust, mutual support, and reciprocity. This definition of wealth focuses as much on non-monetary resources as money. In an example from the data, a woman’s mother takes care of her child so she can clean houses for $250 a week. Without her mother’s support – which is non-monetary, since no money changes hands – she would not be able to work. And yet this is wealth; it contributes significantly to the family’s well-being, even economic well-being. People participating in this study gave repeated examples of this kind of wealth. People are creating networks of relationships – networks of family members, friends and neighbors, and members of one’s church or a grassroots group. Through these networks of mutual trust and support, people are working together in innumerable ways to make things better or keep things from getting worse. People are building stores of non-monetary, relational wealth – wealth based more in solidarity than money. According to the participants in this study, this form of wealth is crucial for making things better for themselves, their families, and their communities. The assumption that change comes primarily from outside of communities is incorrect. Vertical giving institutions such as nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and foundations often assume that the resources needed in marginalized communities are the resources that our institutions have to offer: money, food, clothing, education, or other services and forms of assistance. We may also assume that our institution is best positioned to get these resources to the people who need them. Data from this study suggest that the resources that people need do include money, but also emotional support, caregiving, information, labor, transportation, support around racism, and immigration support. Further, the data suggest that it is not our vertical giving institutions that are the most important providers of these resources; rather, it is networks of family and friends. For people participating in this study, family and friends, rather than institutions, provide emotional support, caregiving, information, or labor; even money is most likely to come from family, friends, or one’s church members. Finally, the data suggest that naturally occurring networks of mutual trust and support, especially among family and friends, are perceived as more important in providing help than professional interventions by institutions based outside of a community. Help comes from within communities, not from outside.

82

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

2. Implications for practice The findings from this study have implications for the practices of institutions focused on giving, institutions such as churches, grassroots groups, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and foundations.

This section builds on the ideas above and outlines implications for the practice of vertical philanthropy, giving through institutions. We provide overviews of possible actions related to vertical philanthropy, focusing primarily on how institutions give to people (rather than how people give to institutions). We present some ideas related to the implications of the findings for churches, grassroots groups, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and foundations. We do not outline implications for practices and actions related to horizontal philanthropy, since horizontal philanthropy occurs organically or naturally within communities, and is not structured by organizations, systems, and fields of practice. This section requires some caveats. First, all of the ideas below are based on our interpretation of the data, on our attempt to apply the findings of this study to various fields of practice. We write from within one field of practice, the nonprofit sector. We feel fairly confident in the implications we lay out for this sector, because we are based in the nonprofit sector and grounded in its theories and practices. We feel less confident in the implications we lay out for churches, grassroots groups, government agencies, and foundations, since do not work in those fields, nor do we know them well. The full implications of the findings for these fields are unclear to us, and we acknowledge that the ideas that we propose below may be mistaken or misguided. However, we are familiar with the data, so it seemed reasonable to at least suggest some ideas. We hope that people working within these fields will take the findings from this study and apply them to their own work. Second, we even have some hesitations about putting forth implications for practice within the nonprofit sector – even though that is the sector in which we work. Recall that the researchers in this study are also practitioners. All of the researchers work in a small, rural nonprofit organization serving low-wealth and marginalized communities. We all work in a vertical giving institution, and vertical philanthropy is what we do in our jobs. We are taking these data seriously, and there was a lot of information in this study that has caused us to re-evaluate our work and our approach as a nonprofit organization. The implications for what we do and how we do it are troubling. We recognize that these findings and their implications may be troubling to others who work in nonprofit organizations, foundations, churches, and government agencies. If so, then we’re in the same boat. We don’t presume to have the answers, only some thoughts, reflections, and ideas. Implications for churches. Churches are involved in vertical philanthropy: They offer social service programs for their members (e.g., financial literacy programs, giving money to congregation members who are struggling), and they help their members develop their faith through church services and other faith development efforts. Churches are also important spaces where horizontal philanthropy occurs: Members of the same church get to know each other; they naturally give money and food to one another, and help each other by providing caregiving, spiritual support, transportation, work in each others’ homes, and emotional support. Of all of the institutions involved in giving, churches seem to be doing the best job in general of amplifying giving, according to participants in this study. Most potential implications for churches, based on the data from this study, focus on continuing and fostering what is already being done: · View the church as a space for amplifying horizontal philanthropy. An important aspect of churches, according to participants in this study, was that churches are spaces where people develop relationships and friendships with others. Through these relationships and friendships, horizontal philanthropy naturally occurs. Members of the same congregation support each other emotionally; they listen when others have problems, and share their thoughts. They lend each other money. When another church member is ill, they bring food, give rides, and clean house for the person who 83

The Center for Participatory Change

is ill. Churches excel at creating opportunities for fellowship and relationship-building. They have regular dinners, women’s groups, joint services, retreats, conferences, mission work, and so on. While relationship-building may not be a church’s primary mission, it is important for amplifying mutual support and giving among church members. · Continue focusing on members’ spiritual development. The various ways that churches help members develop spiritually are important forms of vertical philanthropy: church services, sermons, Bible study, Sunday school, and so on. This is most churches’ core work, and people who participate in those forms of support clearly value them. · Organize a way to give money to members in need. Many churches have some organized way that members pool money to give to other members when they hit a rough time financially and need help with rent or bills, when they face a major illness and need help with medical costs, and so on. This might be a collection for a specific person on a specific day; it might be a “home missions” fund that keeps a pool of money that members can tap into in certain situations. Research participants described these pools of money as important, for both giving and receiving money. Implications for grassroots groups. Grassroots groups are involved in vertical philanthropy. They usually offer some projects, services, or programs for their members (e.g., providing information about resources that members might use, providing support and information about immigration and immigrants’ rights). Grassroots groups are also important spaces where horizontal philanthropy occurs: Members of the same group get to know each other, and they naturally help each other by providing emotional support, information, work in each others’ homes, and (in groups based in communities of color) support around racism. Some potential implications for grassroots groups, based on the data from this study, are outlined below: · View your group as a space for amplifying horizontal philanthropy. The most important aspect of grassroots groups, according to participants in this study, was that these groups are spaces where people develop relationships and friendships with others. Through these relationships and friendships, horizontal philanthropy naturally occurs. Group members support each other emotionally; they listen when others have problems, and share their thoughts. Group members share information about jobs with one another; they come over to one another’s houses to help if somebody gets sick. More than any formal services, this seems to be the most important role that grassroots groups play. · Projects are important, but don’t forget relationship-building. All grassroots groups try to do something to make their community a better place to live. That community work – specific projects, programs, efforts, services, or campaigns – is important. But sometimes groups get so caught up in their community work that they forget to take the time for members to get to know each other better and have fun together. If you want to think about amplifying giving among people in your community, create time and space for relationship-building. Relationships and friendships are the seed from which horizontal philanthropy naturally grows. · Your group may serve as a space for members to support each other around racism, or to overcome racial prejudice. Based on the data, it appears that grassroots groups may play an important role related to racism. First, people reported that they get support around racism from fellow members of grassroots groups. We do not have data on how this actually works. It could be that people in grassroots groups based in communities of color develop a shared analysis around racism, and that the group provides a safe haven to talk about, address, and heal the harms of racism. Second, people in one focus group reported that a grassroots group served as a space where people came together across race and ethnicity – a gathering of African Americans and Latinos. To overcome racial prejudices, people have to have the space to get to know each other across lines of difference, to see each other as human beings, and it appears from the data that grassroots groups can potentially be a

84

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

space where this sort of coming together happens. Again, creating space for people to build relationships, especially across race and ethnicity, helps horizontal philanthropy grow and thrive. Implications for government agencies. Both churches and grassroots groups are community-based institutions: They have a membership that is usually based in a particular community, and the institution as a whole is in various ways driven by and accountable to its membership. Government agencies are different. They are funded through taxes. They are accountable to elected and appointed officials. They are usually based outside of the community they serve. Government agencies are involved in vertical philanthropy. Research participants, particularly Latinos, reported that they value the work of public schools that educate their children, public health departments that provide affordable health care, and community colleges that provide free English lessons. Other research participants reported that while they value the services, the way the services are provided can be degrading. There were no data that suggested that government agencies serve as spaces for amplifying horizontal philanthropy. Potential implications for government agencies include: · Continue to provide important services. Based on research participants’ perspectives, government agencies are providing much-needed services. The services of health departments, schools, and community colleges were noted as being especially important. · Reflect on how services are delivered. In one focus group, participants found the services provided by a government agency to be degrading. Research participants viewed many other agencies positively. Government agency staff can reflect on their practices by asking themselves questions such as: Are we trying to integrate our work into naturally occurring networks of horizontal philanthropy? Are we recognizing that people within communities already know what they need, who has what they need, and how to get it to the people who need it most? As much as possible, are we seeing people in communities as creators of their own development rather than as clients? In terms of paperwork, rules and bureaucracy, are we delivering services in a way that works for the institution, or in a way that works for the people that the institution exists to serve? Are we thinking about systemic and interpersonal racism – how our services, or the way we deliver them, may deny people’s human dignity and shore up oppressive beliefs, attitudes, practices, systems, or laws? · Consider how government agencies intersect with systems of horizontal philanthropy. In any community, both vertical and horizontal philanthropy occur. The work of government agencies is a form of vertical philanthropy. Little is known about how these two forms of giving intersect in specific communities. Do contributions from outside of a community support, distort, co-opt, or conflict with the organic systems of horizontal philanthropy that already exist within that community? As a matter of good practice, should organic systems of horizontal philanthropy inform more structured and bureaucratic systems of vertical philanthropy? When giving comes from outside of a community, how can that giving intersect most productively with the giving that is already going on within a community? · Consider communities as partners. Government agency staff may view acts of mutual help and support among people as small-scale and unimportant. The data in this study show that horizontal philanthropy, giving among friends and family members within communities, is significant in scope and impact. How can government agencies partner with organic systems of horizontal philanthropy that exist within communities? How might these systems of horizontal philanthropy inform the frameworks within which government agencies operate? Implications for nonprofit organizations. Research participants rarely mentioned nonprofit organizations other than churches or grassroots groups. Churches and grassroots groups were mentioned a great deal, and some of these are formal nonprofit organizations, but many are not. Generally speaking, conventional nonprofit organizations – organizations that exist outside of communities and provide

85

The Center for Participatory Change

services for those communities – did not come up in focus group conversations for this study. Some potential implications for nonprofit organizations that are not community-based may be: · Consider becoming community-based. The nonprofit organizations that were mentioned as important sources of help and giving by participants in this study – churches and grassroots groups – were all grounded in a community. An organization that is community-based is rooted in a community by virtue of being directed by a group of people in a community and accountable to that community. Data from this study suggest that community-based nonprofit organizations are touching people’s everyday lives in a way that other nonprofit organizations are not. Any nonprofit organization could become more community-based. Moving in this direction would be a major transition, but one that may be worth the organizational energy. · Reflect on how services are delivered. Staff at nonprofit organizations can reflect on their practices by asking themselves questions such as: Are we trying to integrate our work into naturally occurring networks of horizontal philanthropy? Are we recognizing that people within communities already know what they need, who has what they need, and how to get it to the people who need it most? As much as possible, are we seeing people in communities as creators of their own development rather than as clients? Are we thinking about systemic and interpersonal racism – how our services, or the way we deliver them, may deny people’s human dignity and shore up prejudiced or oppressive beliefs, attitudes, practices, systems, or laws? · Consider how nonprofit organizations intersect with systems of horizontal philanthropy. In any community, there are two major forms of giving that occur: vertical philanthropy (giving to and from institutions) and horizontal philanthropy (giving within social networks). The work of nonprofit organizations – at least those that are not community-based, such as grassroots groups and churches – is a form of vertical philanthropy. Little is known about how these two forms of giving intersect in specific communities. Do contributions from outside of a community support, distort, co-opt, or conflict with the organic systems of horizontal philanthropy that already exist within that community? At the micro level, does the nonprofit help an individual build and foster their horizontal giving network, or does the nonprofit ignore or supplant that network? At the macro level, should organic systems of horizontal philanthropy inform more structured and bureaucratic systems of vertical philanthropy? When giving comes from outside of a community, how can that giving intersect most productively with the giving that is already going on within a community? · Consider communities as partners. Nonprofit staff may view acts of mutual help and support among people as small-scale and unimportant. The data in this study show that horizontal philanthropy, giving among friends and family members within communities, is significant in scope and impact. How can nonprofit organizations partner with organic systems of horizontal philanthropy that exist within communities? How might these systems of horizontal philanthropy inform the frameworks within which nonprofit organizations operate? Implications for foundations. Much like nonprofit organizations that are not community-based, research participants rarely mentioned foundations. In some ways, this is not surprising. Many people living in low-wealth and marginalized communities may be unfamiliar with systems of organized philanthropy such as community foundations, private foundations, family foundations, or corporate foundations. These foundations may play an important role in a particular low-wealth community, by making grants to nonprofit organizations that are either based in that community or provide services for people living in the community. But this role is often behind the scenes; people benefiting from these grants may have no idea that the system of organized philanthropy exists. And most US foundations make grants only to nonprofit organizations, to organizations that have a 501(c)(3) designation with the Internal Revenue Service; many grassroots groups and churches do not have a 501(c)(3) and are thus ineligible for these grants. Some potential implications for foundations may be:

86

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

· Recognize the importance of horizontal philanthropy. Unlike most government agencies and nonprofit organizations, foundations typically view themselves as being part of systems and networks focused on giving. Foundations give money for the common good. This giving is very important; it supports the work of much of the nonprofit sector. This giving is also largely vertical philanthropy, giving to and from institutions, usually institutions based outside of a particular community. Most foundations, and most systems or networks of organized philanthropy, are largely unaware of the importance, scale, and reach of the horizontal philanthropy that occurs in communities. Recognizing the importance of horizontal philanthropy may lead foundations and systems of organized philanthropy to think about and carry out their work differently. · Reflect on how grants are made. Program staff at foundations may consider reflecting on their grantmaking practices by asking themselves questions such as: Are we trying to integrate our grantmaking into naturally occurring networks of horizontal philanthropy? Are we recognizing that people within communities already know what they need, who has what they need, and how to get it to the people who need it most? As much as possible, are we seeing people in communities as creators of their own development rather than as grantees or people in need? Are we thinking about systemic and interpersonal racism – how our grantmaking programs, or the way we interact with grantees, may deny people’s human dignity and shore up oppressive beliefs, attitudes, practices, systems, or laws? In addition to funding programs that meet people’s basic needs, are we funding systems and policy change efforts (e.g., living wage policies, efforts to de-criminalize immigration) that might enable marginalized communities to build on their own resources and move themselves, their families, and their communities out of poverty? · Consider how foundations intersect with systems of horizontal philanthropy. In any community, there are two major forms of giving that occur: vertical philanthropy (giving to and from institutions) and horizontal philanthropy (giving within social networks). Foundation grantmaking is a form of vertical philanthropy. Little is known about how these two forms of giving intersect in specific communities. Do contributions from outside of a community support and reinforce the organic systems of horizontal philanthropy that already exist within that community, or does the vertical philanthropy distort, co-opt, or supplant the horizontal giving? As a matter of good practice, how can organic systems of horizontal philanthropy inform the more structured and bureaucratic systems of vertical philanthropy? When giving comes from outside of a community, how can that giving intersect most productively with the giving that is already going on within a community? · Consider communities as partners. Foundation staff may view acts of mutual help and support among people as small-scale and unimportant. The data in this study show that horizontal philanthropy, giving among friends and family members within communities, is significant in both scope and impact. How can foundation staff partner with organic systems of horizontal philanthropy that exist within communities? How might these systems of horizontal philanthropy inform the frameworks within which foundations operate? · Consider bridging the gap between vertical and horizontal philanthropy. Might foundations (and other vertical giving institutions) want to learn more about organic systems of horizontal philanthropy that exist within communities and how they may be built upon to promote more effective uses of funding and more locally-grounded grantmaking? This idea calls for some caution and vigilance. It could be that attempts by vertical giving institutions to integrate vertical and horizontal philanthropy within a community may undermine or destroy already-existing organic networks of horizontal philanthropy. It could also be that networks of horizontal philanthropy within a community are not of any use to vertical giving institutions such as foundations. Both of these concerns are valid. The key question seems to be: Can vertical giving institutions such as foundations contribute to communities in a way that adds support and resources to pre-existing, already-effective networks of horizontal philanthropy, without undermining or destroying those organic social networks? This may be possible if vertical giving institutions recognize the importance of horizontal philanthropy, refrain from placing additional burdens on people living in 87

The Center for Participatory Change

marginalized communities, and refrain from ‘professionalizing’ or formalizing organic social networks of horizontal philanthropy that exist within communities.

3. Implications for research When we compare the findings of this study with the South Africa study, it is striking that such similar findings can emerge from such different geographic and cultural contexts. This suggests that the findings from both studies are sound or trustworthy.

Recall that this study was a replication of a study conducted by Susan Wilkinson-Maposa and her colleagues (2006) at the University of Cape Town (South Africa) Graduate School of Business. Their study was titled The Poor Philanthropist: How and Why the Poor Help Each Other. The table below briefly compares and contrasts the current study with the South Africa study. We then discuss some implications for further research. Table 8.1: Comparison of research studies Aspect of the Research

South Africa Study

North Carolina, USA Study

Location

Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe

Western North Carolina, USA

UN Human Development Index 2007

Mozambique: 172nd out of 177 countries; Zimbabwe: 151st; Namibia: 125th; South Africa: 121st

US: 12th out of 177 countries

Poverty

Extreme poverty: 52% of all people in these four countries live on less than $2 per day

Little poverty: Median family income for NC in 2005 was $59,481; it was $67,019 for the US as a whole.

Sample size

87 focus groups, 677 research participants

12 focus groups, 122 research participants

Sample characteristics

Very poor; mixed gender, age; more urban than rural

US working class, mixed race / ethnicity, age; 2/3 women; more rural than urban

Questions asked

What is help? Who do you help and who helps you? What forms of help are used and for what purpose? Why do you help? Has help changed over time?

Who helps you and who do you help? What forms of help are you giving and receiving? Why do you help?

Findings: What is given

Material exchanges (e.g., food, money, and tools) are the most common. But non-material giving (e.g., knowledge, manual support, emotional support) is nearly as common and viewed as even more important by givers and receivers

Emotional support and money are the most important gifts given and received. Information, labor, spiritual support, food, caregiving, transportation, cultural work, housing, and support around immigration / racism are also important.

Findings: Who gives?

Most giving occurs among friends and family members. In South Africa (but not in the other countries), informal associations (the equivalent of grassroots groups in the US study) played an

Most giving occurs among friends and family members. Giving also occurs through social networks based in membership in churches and grassroots groups. The services of churches,

88

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Findings: Why do people give?

important role in giving. Formal organizations do not play much of a role in giving in any country.

grassroots groups, and government agencies are somewhat important, but besides this, formal organizations do not play much of a role in giving.

Reciprocity is the most common, most important reason behind people’s giving. Giving is more often an obligation or duty (part of a network or system of reciprocity) than a choice.

Reciprocity is the most common, most important reason behind people’s giving. Giving is rooted in networks of relationships and mutual trust.

Looking at the table above, it is striking that such similar findings came from asking the same questions to people in such vastly different geographic and cultural contexts as the United States and Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa. The validity of the findings in both studies is supported when a replication of the original South African study (even a small-scale replication) in the US finds similar results. The replication of the findings in a US context suggests that the findings are robust. It appears that horizontal philanthropy is important and real, both in wealthy countries like the US and in low-wealth countries like Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa. While the findings of these two studies (the South Africa study and the US study) are intriguing, we need further research into horizontal philanthropy, into helping and giving within communities. The US study in particular was simply too small to draw anything but preliminary or tentative conclusions. Several possible directions for further research are suggested by the findings above: · Geography. How might the findings in the North Carolina study compare to other parts of the United States? How might the data from the US and South Africa compare to Asia, Latin America, North Africa, the Middle East, or Europe? How might the results be similar or different in urban, rather than predominantly rural, geographic areas? · Economic class. The findings remained remarkably consistent between the South Africa study, where participants were extremely poor, and the North Carolina study, where participants were much more affluent by a global standard, although still mostly poor or working class by US standards. Are strong systems of horizontal philanthropy a response or result of living in low-wealth or marginalized environments? How might horizontal and vertical philanthropy look similar or different for middle class and wealthy people, both in the US and elsewhere? · Impact. Participants’ reports, and comparisons to established data on remittances and unpaid labor, all suggest that the cumulative impact of horizontal giving is considerable. Further studies could do more to quantify the specific impact of horizontal giving, and determine in which sectors (housing, health care, child care, food, labor, etc.) horizontal giving has the most impact. · Use of vertical and horizontal giving systems. What determines whether people try to get their needs met through vertical or horizontal giving? Do people try to get the help and support they need from their friends and family, and go to institutions for help and support only when those networks are tapped out or unable to meet a particular need? Is it the case that some people, who lack rich social networks, don’t have many options for help and support through horizontal philanthropy, and therefore go quickly to vertical giving institutions for help and support? Are there certain needs, such as education or health care, that people see as most effectively met by institutions such as public schools or health departments? While the research to date has established the importance of horizontal giving, there has been very little exploration of the rich and complex questions around when and why people choose either vertical or horizontal systems of giving to meet particular needs.

89

The Center for Participatory Change

· The relationship between vertical and horizontal giving. How do systems of vertical and horizontal giving interact, both at the individual and family level and at the community and institutional level? Do these different types of giving support and reinforce each other, or do they conflict and undermine each other? What are the best practices for institutions, agencies, and organizations that want to provide vertical philanthropy in a way that strengthens existing horizontal giving systems? What are the characteristics of people who participate in both vertical and horizontal giving systems effectively? Research on questions such as these will be very important in exploring the implications and the applications of new findings about horizontal giving.

4. Conclusion Might greater attention to and awareness of horizontal philanthropy be one factor informing a shift in the way that vertical philanthropy is practiced in the United States?

There are many rich ideas that emerge from the data in this study. Foremost for us is the idea that the findings from this study raise a crucial question: Might greater attention to and awareness of horizontal philanthropy be one factor informing a shift in the way that vertical philanthropy is practiced in the United States? The findings from this study show that organic and indigenous networks of giving exist within communities. Further, from the perspective of people living in marginalized communities, these mutual support networks are more important than help, support, or giving that comes from institutions based outside of communities. If this is true, it is important information for institutions that focus on giving, helping, supporting, or providing goods and services to low-wealth and marginalized communities. This information is important both for institutions based in those communities (e.g., churches and grassroots groups) and for institutions not based in those communities (e.g., government agencies, foundations, and nonprofit organizations that are not community-based). If vertical giving institutions are aware of the importance of horizontal philanthropy, then they could potentially pay more attention to horizontal philanthropy as they plan and carry out their vertical giving work. Some concrete ideas related to this are outlined above, but vertical giving institutions are ultimately best positioned to discern how best to shift their work to respond to the importance of horizontal philanthropy in marginalized communities. The logic behind this idea – that an awareness of horizontal philanthropy could potentially shape the way vertical philanthropy occurs – is laid out in the following points: · People in low-wealth and marginalized communities give, in a significant way. They are philanthropists. · The giving of money is only one form of giving among many. From the perspective of people living in marginalized communities, philanthropy does not equal giving money. · Seeing philanthropy as altruistic and voluntary is misleading. Most giving occurs in the context of reciprocity and cooperation, within informal systems of mutual duty and obligation. Reciprocity is the core of most giving that occurs in marginalized communities. · Philanthropy has a vertical dimension (vertical philanthropy, where people with wealth give altruistically to institutions that provide goods and services to people in low-wealth communities) and a horizontal dimension (horizontal philanthropy, where people within in communities help, support, and give to each other reciprocally through networks of family and friends). For people in low-wealth communities, horizontal philanthropy is more important.

90

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

· We can rethink conventional philanthropy to see people living in marginalized communities not as clients or grant recipients, but as protagonists in their own development and significant philanthropists. · We can begin to imagine community-based systems and structures for vertical philanthropy. Ideally these would amplify and not displace the indigenous networks of mutual giving that already exist in low-wealth communities. In summary, this study confirms the South African study’s findings that two types of philanthropy exist within low-wealth and marginalized communities. One is horizontal philanthropy, where needed resources flow between and among people who are usually defined as having a need or a problem. The second is vertical philanthropy, where needed resources are brought into a community by an outside institution that has a supply of resources (e.g., money, goods, services) that the institution (but not necessarily the community) defines as the resources needed to solve or address a need or problem. In horizontal philanthropy, a community organizes and channels its own resources to improve the community; in vertical philanthropy, an outside institution defines key community needs, organizes resources to meet those needs, and channels those resources into a low-wealth community – all of this independently of the community receiving the help. These two forms of giving are going on within every low-wealth and marginalized community in the United States. Generally these two forms of giving are completely separate. Horizontal philanthropy exists within social networks of family and friends; vertical philanthropy exists within systems and organizational structures associated with the work of the government or nonprofit sectors. What might an approach to giving look like, though, if we worked to have these two forms of giving become aware and appreciative of each other? What if we looked for areas of compatibility and synergy between these two forms of giving, and tried to promote or amplify these areas of synergy? Might there be links, connections, or areas of potential collaboration between the organic social networks of mutual help and support that exist in communities and the more formal, institutional forms of help and support practiced by churches, grassroots groups, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and foundations? What might it look like if the best practices for churches, grassroots groups, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and foundations were built from the integration of the best of vertical philanthropy (the best practices for giving to low-wealth communities in all of these various sectors or fields) and the best of horizontal philanthropy (the naturally occurring social networks of mutual help and support within communities)? The potential for more effective work to strengthen communities could emerge from an integration of the realities of indigenous networks of mutual support and the best practices in various professional fields. The data from this study suggest that community-based institutions are realizing this potential already, to a degree. Some institutions that are rooted in and directed by members of a particular community, such as churches and grassroots groups, integrate the provision of services (vertical philanthropy, giving from the institution to the people) with the creation of social spaces where relationships and friendships can develop among members. As friendships naturally develop among members of churches and grassroots groups, these friends naturally start helping, supporting, and giving to one another. They take care of each other’s kids, give each other rides, loan each other money, and help out when each other is ill. Community-based institutions such as churches and grassroots groups are already achieving, to some extent, an integration of the best of vertical philanthropy and the best of horizontal philanthropy. Institutions that are not community-based face more challenges in integrating the best of vertical and horizontal philanthropy. Most vertical giving institutions – most government agencies, nonprofit organizations, or foundations – do not have members that come together regularly as part of the 91

The Center for Participatory Change

institution’s work. Most do not put organizational resources (time or money) into creating social spaces where friendships (and eventually horizontal philanthropy) develop. Most are unaware of the importance of horizontal philanthropy, and pay no attention to horizontal philanthropy in their plans or work. If an institution that is not community-based was interested in integrating the best of its work and the best of horizontal philanthropy, there are many paths that the institution could take, ranging from making incremental changes to a fundamental shift in approach. An incremental shift toward integrating the best of horizontal philanthropy and the best of vertical philanthropy would mean that an institution does what it usually does, only with more community input. This might mean modifying existing practices, services, or programs so that they structured in more listening to and engaging with people living in low-wealth and marginalized communities. Community participation is possible in any part of program development, since institutions can structure in community input (ranging from indirect input, to consultation, to shared control, to full control) in the initiation, planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of a given program or effort. Beyond increasing community participation, institutions that are not community-based can begin to plan and implement their community work in a way that intentionally recognizes and respects the reality that organic networks of mutual help and support exist in low-wealth communities, and that these are in place before any intervention comes in from outside of a community. These incremental changes, increasing community participation and recognizing the importance of horizontal giving, may gradually lead toward additional changes in practice and approach as the institution continues to learn from its community. Alternatively, vertical giving institutions could make a more fundamental shift in their approach to giving in low-wealth or marginalized communities. This transformation might happen as the result of a shift in perspective: Rather than seeing vertical institutions as the central, active component of giving, and seeing clients or grant applicants primarily as the passive recipients of giving, that perspective can be reversed, so that horizontal giving systems are seen as the central component of giving, while vertical institutions use their resources to supplement, support and enhance that local system. This would entail, first, a critical review of the ways that institutions such as government agencies, nonprofit organizations and foundations are currently working in low-wealth and marginalized communities. This shift would also require a deeper understanding of the ways in which horizontal philanthropy functions in those communities, and a clearer picture of how vertical and horizontal giving systems impact each other. Perhaps the most challenging change, though, is the recognition that if people in low-wealth communities are in fact the primary protagonists of their own development, then the values and priorities of the institution should shift, so that the visions, needs, abilities and goals of those community members take priority over the needs and the structure of the institution itself. This new approach to giving would require those of us in foundations, agencies and nonprofit organizations to move beyond or outside the worldviews, cultures, assumptions, and giving practices of people with privilege and wealth; our work would instead have to be grounded in the daily realities of people experiencing severe economic hardship and multiple forms of oppression. Consequently this new approach to giving would require a shift in power and control in the way that vertical philanthropy is done in the US. We would have to move from an infrastructure of giving controlled largely by people with privilege and wealth to an infrastructure of giving that recognizes poor people as the central driving force in improving their own communities. While this transformation may seem prohibitively difficult, as institutions are notoriously hard to change, we predict that those foundations, agencies and organizations that can make this shift are those that will have the greatest impact in the 21st century. We hope that the findings from this study, combined with those from the South African study, will raise awareness of the contributions made by people living in low-wealth and marginalized communities to strengthening communities and helping move people and places out of poverty. We hope that institutions focused on giving – churches, grassroots groups, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and foundations – will be more aware of and pay more attention to the indigenous networks of mutual support and help that exist in communities. We believe that these indigenous networks of mutual support and 92

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

help are under-acknowledged and under-appreciated. We do not believe that they are enough, by themselves, to move people and places out of poverty; we do not want to see anti-poverty efforts from outside of low-wealth communities cease, dry up, or move away. Rather, we hope that institutions such as churches, grassroots groups, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and foundations will build their work in low-wealth and marginalized communities on the realization that there are significant resources already within those communities, that people in local communities know how to get those resources where they’re most needed, and that people are doing important work already to help and support each other and make their communities better places to live.

93

The Center for Participatory Change

References Allard, J. & Matthaei, J. (2008). Solidarity economy: An overview. Guramlay: Growing the Green Economy. www.geo.coop/files/SE%20Definitions%20and%20Themes_SEN_draft.doc Axinn, J. & Stern, M.J. (2007). Social welfare: A history of the American response to need. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon Brugha, T.S. (Ed) (2007). Social Support and Psychiatric Disorder: Research Findings and Guidelines for Clinical Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, S., Underwood, L.G., & Gottleib, B.H. (Eds.) (2000). Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1983) Forms of capital, in J. C. Richards (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press. Brazilian Forum of Solidarity Economy (2006). Brazilian Forum of Solidarity Economy: The management and organizational experience of the solidarity economy movement in Brazil. Brasilia: Brazilian Forum of Solidarity Economy (www.fbes.org.br). Coleman, J. C. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: 95-120. Diani, M. & McAdam, D. (Eds.) (2003). Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Friedman, L.J. & McGarvie, M.D. (Eds.) (2004). Charity, philanthropy, and civility in American History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gaventa, J. (1980). Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2006). A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahway, NJ: Paulist Press (25th Anniversary Edition 2002). Greenleaf, R.K. (1976). Is it more blessed to give than receive? Friends Journal: Quaker Thought and Life Today. Jackson, M.O. (2008). Social and economic networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jackson, T.P. (2006). The priority of love: Christian charity and social justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Knoke, D. & Yang, S. (2007). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

94

Horizontal Philanthropy: The Importance of Giving within Low-Wealth Communities

Kretzmann, J.P & McKnight, J.L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. London and New York: Routledge. Lin, N. & Erickson, B. (Eds.) (2008). Social capital: An international research program. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications. Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Miller, E. (2004). Solidarity economics: Strategies for building new economies from the bottom-up and the inside-out. http://www.geo.coop/SolidarityEconomicsEthanMiller.htm Miller, E. (2006). Other economies are possible. Dollars and Sense, July / August 2006, 11-15. O’Neill, M. (2002). Nonprofit nation: A new look at the third America. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Payton, R.L. & Moody, M.P. (2008). Understanding philanthropy: Its meaning and mission. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Pennel., J., Noponen, H., & Weil, M. (2005). Empowerment research. In Weil (Ed.), The handbook of community practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Plickert, G, Cote, R.R., & Wellman, B. (2007). It’s not who you know, it’s how you know them: Who exchanges with whom? Social Networks (29:3), 405-429. Powell, W.W. & Steinberg, R. (2006) (Eds.). The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy 6:1, 65-78. http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/journal_of_democracy/v006/putnam.html Sigmon, R.L. (1979). Service-learning: Three Principles. Synergist. National Center for ServiceLearning, ACTION, 8(1): 9-1 1. Sigmon, R.L. (1994). Linking service with learning. Washington, DC: Council of Independent Colleges.

95

The Center for Participatory Change

The Urban Institute (2006). The nonprofit sector in brief: Facts and figures from The Nonprofit Almanac, 2007. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/311373_nonprofit_sector.pdf. Trattner, W.I. (1998). From poor law to welfare state: A history of social welfare in America. Washington, DC: Free Press Uchino, B.N. (2004). Social Support and Physical Health: Understanding the Health Consequences of Relationships. New Haven: Yale University Press. Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilkinson-Maposa, S., Fowler, A., Oliver-Evans, C., & Mulenga, C.F.N. (2006). The poor philanthropist: how and why the poor help each other. University of Cape Town (South Africa) Graduate School of Business.

96