At our most recent ‘Insights’ event we investigated the ways that different age groups engage with different charities. Some of our attendees’ discussions afterwards raised an interesting question – to what extent are these generational differences due to ‘life-stage effects,’ and to what extent are they due to ‘cohort effects’?

For example, the RNLI is a classic case of a charity that has a lot of success with older age groups; levels of support for the RNLI are much higher among the oldest. But is this because when someone gets to a certain age (or life-stage) the RNLI cause and brand suddenly becomes more appealing? (As one attendee joked, along perhaps with beige clothing, brogues and the Antiques Roadshow). Or are levels of support for the RNLI elevated particularly amongst today’s group (or cohort) of older people; perhaps because during their lifetime the RNLI was of more central importance – was ‘sea rescue’ previously just generally a more important issue for the public?

Changing donor patterns

This is an important question for most charities to ask about themselves because it helps to determine who their donors will be tomorrow – will they be the same people who are donating today, or will they just look like the same people who are donating today? Can a veteran’s charity rely on the support of tomorrow’s older generation – who will not have such a connection to the World Wars? To what degree can an animal charity expect that the youngsters who take part in a membership scheme will become donors in the future?

These questions also apply to the sector as a whole. A recent report from the Cass Business School and the University of Bristol found that over the last three decades the proportion of donors who are over 65 has risen (the proportion from the richest sections of society has also risen)[fn]Cowley, E., McKenzie, T., and  Pharoah, C., Smith, S., 2011. The New State of Donation. Three Decades of Household Giving to Charity 1978 – 2008. Cass Business School; and University of Bristol[/fn]. As Andrew Papworth noted in Harvest, fundraisers could “just accept the situation and concentrate … on older richer people until they die out … [or they could] concentrate [their] efforts on younger, less affluent people because they represent the future, knowing they will be less productive.”[fn]Papworth, A., 2011. Harvest, No. 43.[/fn]

To illustrate the different ways these patterns play out for different charities, we have compiled the animated chart below. Each bubble represents a separate charity. The bubble’s position on the x-axis (from left to right) represents the proportion of people who have heard of that charity; the bubble’s position on the y-axis (from bottom to top) represents the proportion of people who support that charity. At the start of the animation the chart shows the state of affairs among members of the public aged about 18. If you press play then you can see how levels of awareness and support change as we look at older age groups – from age 18.00 through to age 73.00. You can click on any individual bubble to track that bubble’s progress (- unless you have a very fast internet connection we would suggest you untick the box marked ‘Trails’ as this will slow the animation down considerably.)

inline:field_special:1

This chart is compiled from data collected from the research for our Charity Awareness Monitor in 2010 (representing the responses of 7000 people in total). To protect the rights of our clients this data has had to be anonymised here. However CAM clients can access the labeled data on request.

As we would expect, there is a general drift of bubbles to the right and upwards; for many charities awareness and support tend to be higher among older age groups. As CAM clients will see (and as others must imagine!) the RNLI shows an exaggerated version of this pattern. Other charities show very different patterns.

Why are donor patterns changing?

So – are these patterns due to life-stage or cohort effects? The easiest way to answer this question would be to look at patterns of engagement with charities in different age groups over the last 20 years or more; unfortunately, few people have collected sufficient data for long enough to provide this definitive answer. However, nfpSynergy’s own data does provide some clues.

Because young people move rapidly through different life stages, the patterns here are clearer. In our Youth Engagement Monitor, a regular survey of young people aged 11-25, we find a spike in concern with issues related to animals around aged 12 (e.g. 73% of 11-13 year olds are extremely or very concerned about neglect of animals) and a spike in willingness to support a charity working on cruelty to animals (68% very or quite willing to support such a charity). Actual levels of support for specific animal charities (amongst 11-25 year olds) are also highest among the 11-13 age group.

But what is quite clear is that this year’s 11-13 year-olds are not a special group – over the last few years it has consistently been this age group who are most concerned with animal issues. This is definitive proof of a life-stage effect – younger children are simply more concerned with animal issues than older children, and long has it been so. Animal charities can and should work to retain their youngest supporters - but they must recognise they are fighting an uphill battle.

We also see evidence of another life-stage effect in the Youth Engagement Monitor. We have consistently found there to be a spike in interest in a range of issues around age 17-19, but particularly in the big global issues (e.g. world poverty). 21% of 17-19 year olds strongly agree that they have a personal responsibility to do something about poverty – this compares to 14% of 20-22 year olds and just 11% of 14-16 year olds. Similarly, 29% of 17-19 year olds strongly agree they personally can do something that makes a difference, compared to 20% of 20-22 year olds, and 11% of 14-16 year olds. But again, this peak in interest in these issues does not seem to be sustained as people age; year after year we find this effect specifically among 17-19 year olds.

Since life stage tends to change more slowly for adults it is harder to find evidence of this nature. However, we do find in our Charity Engagement Monitor that those with pets are more likely to support animal charities, and that those who have children are more likely to support children’s charities. This does suggest that the life experiences of getting a pet or having a child can have an impact on the way people engage with charities.

(Some might argue that those who like animals are more likely to get a pet, and that is why pet owners are more likely to support animal charities. It could even be argued that those who like children are more likely to have children, as well as to support children’s charities. But: we also find that those with a personal connection to someone with cancer or in a hospice are more likely to support those causes; in these cases at least, we can be sure that the higher levels of interest in supporting cancer charities or hospices is indeed a result of people’s life experience).

And as far as finding that definitive answer is concerned… nfpSynergy’s Charity Awareness Monitor has now been running for over 10 years. We are currently investigating a decade of data on trends in awareness and support for specific charity brands; this may provide some clues.

Long-term trend data would also the best evidence of cohort effects. But in my conversations with fundraisers few doubt that these can be significant. Take for example Leonard Cheshire Disability, whose awareness levels have fallen consistently among younger age groups, while remaining steady among older groups. The name of Leonard Cheshire has decreasing importance for younger generations, while older generations still remember him as a war hero. Similarly, evidence exists that the generation in their late teens and early twenties in the late 80’s when the issue of the HIV/AIDS pandemic first rose to global prominence are more concerned with this issue than most.

Inevitably, the truth is surely that both life-stage and cohort effects are real; generational trends in engagement are a combination of the two (complicated further by the different approaches charity fundraisers take to different age groups). For some charities life-stage effects will be more important than others. Understanding the importance of these effects for your specific charity is essential if you want to identify those people who are most likely to be your supporters tomorrow.