There is not much difference between the givers' and non-givers' opinion on the nonprofit organizations. (See Table 8.29.) Slightly more non-givers think that foundations are tax-shelters and nonprofit organizations are too politicized. On the other hand, givers and volunteers hold nonprofits in somewhat (but not much) higher esteem than those who did not contribute either money or work to these organizations in 1993.
As attitudes toward giving, volunteering and nonprofit organizations do not differ corresponding to actual charitable behavior, the divergence of knowledge of the givers and non-givers about nonprofit organizations is all the more significant. (See Table 18.) Only 15 per cent of the non-givers hear a lot about nonprofits, more than half of them get little information or cannot even say how informed they are. By contrast, about one third of the donors and volunteers are very well informed.
Table 18
Breakdown of donors, volunteers and non-contributors by the degree of their knowledge about nonprofit organizations
% The degree of knowledge about nonprofit
organizations
In-kind Cash
Volunteers Not helping contributors The respondent hears quite a lot about
NPOs
30.2 27.8 39.5 14.9 The respondent hears not too much about
NPOs 30.6 31.3 30.8 25.2
The respondent hears little about NPOs 26.4 27.5 18.2 33.3 Not sure, cannot say 11.5 12.3 10.6 21.0 No answer 1.3 1.1 0.9 5.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Accordingly, a larger proportion of givers than non-givers have access to any of the information sources. (See Table 19.) Non-givers' information almost exclusively comes from only three sources: from the media, the press and informal, personal relationships. Donors and volunteers are much better informed by these very same sources, and also from elsewhere (church and cultural events, lasting relationships with voluntary groups, requests from nonprofit organizations seeking funds).
Table 19
Sources of information on the nonprofit organizations:
Share of respondents receiving information from the given sources, %
Source of information In-kind Cash
Volunteers Not helping contributors Television, radio 92.2 90.0 88.4 83.8 Newspapers, magazines 78.2 76.2 79.8 57.3 Church events 24.7 40.1 50.1 6.6 Mail to home 12.7 12.5 16.2 3.2 Political events 3.9 3.4 9.3 0.9 Cultural events 14.9 14.1 28.5 2.6 Street collections 26.3 24.8 27.4 9.8 Door to door collection 21.4 21.6 25.2 7.0 Friends, relatives, neighbours 41.6 38.5 46.9 21.7 Relationship with nonprofit
organizations 14.6 17.6 36.8 1.1
The overwhelming majority (more than 90 per cent) of the non-givers have not even received requests for donations, or met professional fund raisers; mailshots to their homes , street collections, and door to door collections are all completely unknown methods to them. The proportion of people who received such pleas is also quite low (between 13 and 27 per cent) among the donors and volunteers. This suggests that there is a vast unexplored market for grant-seeking organizations which are able and ready to use the more sophisticated fund raising methods.
Only about one third of the donors are thanked in any way for their support. (See Tables 20.)
Table 20
Number and proportion of cash contributors according to if they were thanked or not by the supported organizations (missing values not included)
Were you thanked? Number Percentage
of donors
Were thanked 937,062 36.8
Were not thanked 1,609,765 63.2
Total 2,546,827 100.0
Table 21
The incidence of saying thanks to donors by the forms of thanks
Form of saying thanks Incidence of saying thanks
Number Distribution
% Letter of thanks 185,543 17.1 Symbolic present 112,910 10.4 Certificate about the tax deductibility of the donation 87,423 8.0 Medal, title 4,123 0.4 Thanks in some other way 696,170 64.1
Total 1,086,169 100.0
This shockingly humble figure shows how low the level of professionalism within Hungarian nonprofit organizations is. If we take a look at the actual forms of saying thanks (Table 21), we can report that the use of the relatively sophisticated methods (letter of thanks, symbolic present, medal, title) is very limited. Occasional, informal thanks amount to almost two thirds of all the cases. A higher level of professionalization is absolutely necessary in the fund raising activities of nonprofit organizations. This would mean not only the use of the most efficient fund raising methods, but also the task of building solid relationships between the voluntary organizations and their supporters.
7. CONCLUSION
In short, the results of our survey of individual giving and volunteering seem to suggest that the general climate, values and attitudes are rather favourable for the development of charitable giving and volunteering in Hungary. The citizens' efforts to influence decision making, and to control social development include the need and willingness to participate in the solution of the social problems. Most of the people are ready to help others, and even the non-givers' attitudes toward donations and voluntary work are positive. Clearly, an overwhelming majority of individuals believe that they should give to charity and volunteer time to those who are less fortunate. Donations and voluntary work represent important (partly exploited, partly potential) resources for the future development of the voluntary sector.
Certainly, it was only to be expected that the culture of giving and volunteering be somewhat underdeveloped after four decades of state socialism, and under the conditions of a deep economic crisis. Contributors are not particularly well informed and careful in the allocation of their donations and voluntary work, while nonprofit organizations are not very skilful in raising funds and recruiting volunteers. Nevertheless, individual donations represented a significant part of third sector revenues in 1993, voluntary work substituted for the employment of paid staff in many of the nonprofit organizations.
The future development of giving and volunteering will clearly depend on the social and economic environment of the charitable behavior. Both government's and voluntary organizations' responsibility is enormous in maintaining the generally favourable climate and improving the actual conditions for charitable activities.
8. TABLES
Table 8.1
Number and share of individuals giving and volunteering outside the family in the sample and within the adult population
Charitable behavior Sample value Grossed up value
number %
Number of donors and volunteers 9,484 5,109,975 65.4 Number of non-givers 5,349 2,704,130 34.6
Total 14,833 7,814,105 100.0
Table 8.2
The number of donors and volunteers by supportees
Supportees In-kind Cash Volunteers
contributors
Known private person 970,868 69,243 1,050,789 Unknown private person 454,780 501,740 59,318 Both kinds of private persons 424,629 94,056 133,999 Only private persons 1,850,277 665,039 1,244,106 Known organization 204,071 1,328,359 438,731 Unknown organization 114,079 327,493 35,211 Both kinds of organizations 5,972 123,117 8,730 Only organizations 324,122 1,778,969 482,672 Mixed supportees 384,902 901,836 414,274 Private persons 2,235,179 1,566,875 1,658,380 Organizations 709,024 2,680.805 896,946 No answer 105,564 185,784 122,728
Total 2,664,865 3,531,628 2,263,780
Table 8.3
The breakdown of donors and volunteers by suppportees
Supportees In-kind Cash Volunteers contributors
Known private person 36.4 2.0 46.4 Unknown private person 17.1 14.2 2.6 Both kinds of private persons 15.9 2.7 5.9 Only private persons 69.4 18.9 54.9 Known organization 7.7 37.6 19.4 Unknown organization 4.3 9.3 1.6 Both kinds of organizations 0.2 3.5 0.4 Only organizations 12.2 50.4 21.4 Mixed supportees 14.4 25.5 18.3
No answer 4.0 5.2 5.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 8.4
The number of donors and volunteers supporting organizations by supportees
The supported organization In-kind Cash Volunteers
contributors
Only foundation 15,866 166,673 17,355 Only association 257,942 202,296 140,731 Only church 154,156 1,360,990 186,866 Only local government 118,848 100,699 326,445 Mixed supportees 148,788 824,412 212,351 No answer 13,424 25,735 13,198 Total of donors giving to
organizations
709,024 2,680,805 896,946
Total of givers 2,664,865 3,531,628 2,263,780
Table 8.5
Total number of supporters of different organizations
The supported organization In-kind Cash Volunteers contributors
Foundation 57,063 587,897 71,311 Association 377,605 695,856 281,887 Church 252,584 1,979,546 320,359 Public institution 189,075 303,585 479,650
Table 8.6
The share of donors supporting only the given type of organization as % of all supporters of the organization
The supported organization In-kind Cash Volunteers contributors
Foundation 27.8 28.4 24.3
Association 68.3 29.1 49.9
Church 61.0 68.8 58.3
Public institution 62.9 33.2 68.1
Table 8.7
The number of donors by the size of their donations
Amount of donation, HUF Foundation Voluntary association
Church
– 100 30,098 40,443 68,166 101– 500 150,803 194,634 474,079 501– 1,000 105,690 108,330 497,233 1,001– 5,000 152,339 129,342 566,725 5,001–10,000 29,666 19,238 57,496 10,001–50,000 37,562 13,851 22,939 50,001 – 8,020 1,382 2,168 Not known 73,719 188,636 290,740
Total 587,897 695,856 1,979,546
Table 8.8
The number and breakdown of voluntary blood donors by the frequency of donations
Frequency Number of donors Percentage of donors
Once in 1993 407,983 52.4
More than once 371,119 47.6
Total 779,102 100.0
Table 8.9
Number and breakdown of the in-kind donations by fields of activity of the supported nonprofit organizations
Field of activity Number Percentage
of donations
Culture 24,998 2.3
Sports 13,669 1.2
Recreation 7,041 0.6
Education 53,340 4.8
Research 7,247 0.7
Health 87,930 7.9
Social care 381,566 34.3
Emergency 29,450 2.7
Environment 12,566 1.1
Community development, housing 7,584 0.7 Economic development 6,819 0.6 Civil rights 13,287 1.2 Minority rights 32,963 3.0 Crime prevention, legal services 7,525 0.7 International activities 26,274 2.4 Support to Hungarians living abroad 169,433 15.2 Business associations, unions 6,232 0.6 Professional associations 3,974 0.4
Church 188,277 16.9
Multipurpose grant-making organizations 19,385 1.7
Other 11,446 1.0
Total 1,111,006 100.0
Table 8.10
The amount and breakdown of the cash donations by fields of activity of the supported nonprofit organizations
Field of activity Amount (1000 HUF) Percentage
of donations
Culture 1,015,403 13.3
Sports 632,082 8.3
Recreation 28,988 0.4
Education 1,203,319 15.8
Research 29,636 0.4
Health 574,257 7.5
Social care 524,233 6.9
Emergency 9,903 0.1
Environment 102,410 1.4
Community development, housing 23,652 0.3 Economic development 1,446 0.0
Civil rights 7,120 0.1
Minority rights 9,785 0.1
Crime prevention, legal services 68,253 0.9 International activities 16,557 0.2 Support to Hungarians living abroad 129,658 1.7 Business associations, unions 33,545 0.4 Professional associations 44,200 0.6
Church 3,055,913 40.1
Multipurpose grant-making organizations 86,431 1.1
Other 31,097 0.4
Total 7,627,888 100.0
Table 8.11
The monthly hours of voluntary work by fields of activity of the supported nonprofit organizations
Field of activity Amount (hours) Percentage of voluntary work
Culture 918,772 10.4
Sports 544,846 6.1
Recreation 443,211 5.0
Education 607,118 6.8
Research 106,936 1.2
Health 534,287 6.0
Social care 859,603 9.7
Emergency 87,653 1.0
Environment 358,741 4.0
Community development, housing 299,122 3.4 Economic development 88,534 1.0
Civil rights 150,850 1.7
Minority rights 336,971 3.8
Crime prevention, legal services 300,128 3.4 International activities 94,091 1.1 Support to Hungarians living abroad 181,112 2.0 Business associations, unions 135,355 1.5 Professional associations 104,175 1.2
Church 2,511,261 28.3
Multipurpose grant-making organizations 98,703 1.1
Other 113,818 1.3
Total 8,875,287 100.0
Table 8.12
The number of donors by the frequency of donations (missing values not included)
Frequency In-kind contributors Cash contributors to
individuals organizations
Once a year 362,260 102,115 434,632
Twice a year 410,385 143,215 274,813
Once a month 139,271 86,851 282,460
Once a week 49,372 34,215 294,092
Only once exceptionally 275,450 213,828 416,008
Occasionally 1,381,101 871,837 867,963
Total 2,617,839 1,452,061 2,569,968
Table 8.13
The breakdown of donors by the frequency of donations
Frequency In-kind contributors Cash contributors to
individuals organizations
Once a year 13.8 7.0 16.9
Twice a year 15.7 9.9 10.7
Once a month 5.3 6.0 11.0
Once a week 1.9 2.4 11.4
Only once exceptionally 10.5 14.7 16.2
Occasionally 52.8 60.0 33.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 8.14
The number and breakdown of volunteers by the frequency of voluntary work (missing values not included)
Frequency Number Percentage
of volunteers
Once a year 136,382 6.2
Twice a year 229,056 10.4
Once a month 215,578 9.8
Once a week 111,154 5.0
Almost every day 86,798 3.9
Only once exceptionally 288,583 13.1
Occasionally 1,140,010 51.6
Total 2,207,561 100.0
Table 8.15
The number of donors and volunteers by target groups (missing values not included)
Target groups whose interest was served Cash contributors Volunteers
Unknown people in need 549,896 87,365
Known people in need 100,604 25,586
Supporter and his/her family 38,130 4,032
Supporter and others 142,630 57,526
The community as a whole 1,075,218 328,446
Mixed, not clear 245,876 41,730
Don't know 394,473 11,736
Total 2,546,827 556,421
Table 8.16
The number of the supported organizations by scope of activity (missing values not included)
Scope of activity Number of organization receiving cash donations voluntary work
International 336,961 93,654 National 675,285 171,880
Several regions 93,028 49,786
One region 108,411 53,947
One settlement 787,860 250,000
One neighbourhood 381,247 118,720
The question is not relevant 408,352 89,442
Total 2,791,144 827,429
Table 8.17
The breakdown of the supported organizations by scope of activity (missing values not included)
% Scope of activity Number of organization receiving
cash donations voluntary work
International 12.1 11.3 National 24.2 20.8
Several regions 3.3 6.0
One region 3.9 6.5
One settlement 28.2 30.2
One neighbourhood 13.7 14.4
The question is not relevant 14.6 10.8
41 Table 8.18
Percentage of adult population giving and volunteering by the size of the household
In-kind Cash Volunteers Number of members of the
household contributors
as % of the adult population
1 24 40 20
2 32 44 24
3 37 47 32
4 41 50 37
5 36 45 35
6 37 50 36
7 and more 29 36 26
Total 34 45 29
Table 8.19
Percentage of adult population giving and volunteering by income sources
In-kind Cash
Income source contributors Volunteers as % of the adult population
Salary 39 47 36
Business income 46 54 37
Odd job compensation 29 38 22
Pension 27 43 18
Allowances 31 38 28
Salary + Extra work income 55 71 59
Salary+Allowances 42 52 49
Pension+Extra work 48 58 36
Total 34 45 29
Table 8.20
The number of donors and volunteers by counties
County In-kind Cash
Number of contributors volunteers
Budapest 655,114 842,215 513,880
Baranya 117,304 128,506 93,164
Bács-Kiskun 139,323 156,169 98,027
Békés 95,491 76,887 66,377
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén 177,992 203,909 133,185
Csongrád 122,321 129,665 84,381
Fejér 94,442 139,276 98,369
Gyõr-Moson-Sopron 104,714 208,667 93,402
Hajdú-Bihar 164,812 115,057 84,536
Heves 86,393 117,581 71,003
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok 103,339 126,585 112,362 Komárom-Esztergom 88,926 132,460 102,771
Nógrád 57,712 107,441 71,026
Pest 163,516 200,402 133,921
Somogy 88,450 132,484 79,833
Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg 112,015 217,120 112,734
Tolna 56,222 87,596 54,604
Vas 74,790 158,977 94,202
Veszprém 80,397 130,043 86,662
Zala 81,592 120,588 79,341
Total 2,664,865 3,531,628 2,263,780
43 Table 8.21
Percentage of adult population giving and volunteering by counties
In-kind Cash Number of
County contributors volunteers as % of the adult population
Budapest 41 53 32
Baranya 43 47 34
Bács-Kiskun 36 41 25
Békés 27 22 19
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén 33 38 25
Csongrád 34 36 23
Fejér 30 45 32
Gyõr-Moson-Sopron 33 65 29
Hajdú-Bihar 42 29 22
Heves 30 41 25
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok 29 35 31
Komárom-Esztergom 38 56 43
Nógrád 33 62 41
Pest 26 32 22
Somogy 29 44 26
Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg 28 55 28
Tolna 29 46 28
Vas 33 69 41
Veszprém 30 48 32
Zala 36 54 35
Total 34 45 29
Table 8.22
Motivations for in-kind donations: the percentage of respondents who said the given motive had not played any role (mark 1) or had played an extremely important role (mark 5)
in their decision, and the average scores
Motivations
Helping makes me feel good about myself
3.5 43.4 4.24
My living conditions improved 58.4 5.0 1.85
The quality of services improved 66.6 1.9 1.54
Tax advantages, cost reimbursement 82.2 0.3 1.17
A concrete aim was reached 33.6 15.2 2.83
Information about the possible
organizations to be supported 44.3 9.1 2.35
The example of friends 43.8 4.9 2.17
Broadcasted plight of people in need 53.4 5.3 2.01
Trust in the supported organization 30.8 19.9 2.99
Table 8.23
Motivations for cash donations: the percentage of respondents who said the given motive had not played any role (mark 1) or had played an extremely important role (mark 5)
in their decision, and the average scores
Motivations
My living conditions improved 61.2 4.7 1.80
The quality of services improved 67.1 2.0 1.57
Tax advantages, cost reimbursement 85.9 0.5 1.15
A concrete aim was reached 27.4 17.0 3.11
Information about the possible
organization to be supported 35.9 11.1 2.70
The example of friends 45.7 4.7 2.15
Broadcasted plight of people in need 58.0 4.7 1.91
Trust in the supported organization 16.6 27.0 3.63
Table 8.24
Motivations for voluntary work: the percentage of respondents who said the given motive had not played any role (mark 1) or had played an extremely important role (mark 5)
in their decision, and the average scores
Motivations
Helping makes me feel good about
myself 3.1 46.9 4.29
My living conditions improved 50.2 8.9 2.23
The quality of services improved 60.4 3.0 1.79
Tax advantages, cost reimbursement 85.9 0.7 1.19
A concrete aim was reached 13.0 26.7 3.74
Information about the possible
organizations to be supported 27.8 16.0 3.07
The example of friends 40.6 7.7 2.39
Broadcasted plight of people in need 53.3 5.5 2.06
46 Table 8.25
Opinion of in-kind donors about giving and volunteering: the percentage of respondents who categorically disagreed (mark 1) or firmly agreed (mark 5) with the given statement,
and the average scores
Opinions Do not agree at all (1)
%
Firmly agree (5)
% Average score Charity is necessary because the state
cannot solve all the problems. 2.8 27.8 3.92 Charity is useful because it can alleviate
social problems. 1.7 22.9 3.90 People are happy to promote public
purposes. 4.8 9.7 3.31
Who is slightly more affluent than others
has to help the people in need. 5.1 11.5 3.28 It is a moral obligation to help the poor. 2.0 24.4 3.83 To help children, elderly and handicapped
people is a moral obligation. 0.3 52.7 4.47 To help refugees is a moral obligation 1.7 20.8 3.80 The state and local governments should
help the people in need. 3.2 24.1 3.73 Local governments are competent in
solving community problems, private
citizens cannot do too much. 5.5 9.2 3.25 The really rich have to help the poor. 8.5 15.3 3.16 Society can rely on believers and churches
in solving public problems. 5.5 13.3 3.32 Good families don't need support from
outside. 5.7 12.3 3.26
Charity cannot solve social problems if the donees don't make efforts to solve
their own problems. 10.1 14.7 3.22 Only the decent poor merit support. 7.6 13.1 3.17 I would need support myself, I cannot
help others. 18.9 6.9 2.53
I have family problems and don't have
time to help others. 19.6 4.9 2.42
Table 8.26
Opinion of cash donors about giving and volunteering: the percentage of respondents who categorically disagreed (mark 1) or firmly agreed (mark 5)
with the given statement, and the average scores
Opinions Do not agree at all (1)
%
Firmly agree (5)
% Average score Charity is necessary because the state
cannot solve all the problems. 2.7 25.6 3.90 Charity is useful because it can alleviate
social problems. 1.5 20.3 3.88 People are happy to promote public
purposes. 3.9 9.3 3.33
Who is slightly more affluent than others
has to help the people in need. 4.9 9.9 3.26 It is a moral obligation to help the poor. 2.2 23.5 3.81
To help children, elderly and handicapped
people is a moral obligation. 0.3 50.4 4.45 To help refugees is a moral obligation 1.1 19.0 3.81 The state and local governments should
help the people in need. 2.6 20.8 3.73 Local governments are competent in
solving community problems, private
citizens cannot do too much. 4.5 9.1 3.28 The really rich have to help the poor. 7.9 14.0 3.18 Society can rely on believers and churches
in solving public problems. 4.0 16.8 3.56 Good families don't need support from
outside. 4.8 11.3 3.30
Charity cannot solve social problems if the donees don't make efforts to solve
their own problems. 8.8 15.4 3.31 Only the decent poor merit support. 6.5 13.6 3.25 I would need support myself, I cannot
help others. 16.6 7.0 2.63
I have family problems and don't have
time to help others. 18.4 4.3 2.44
48 Table 8.27
Opinion of volunteers about giving and volunteering: the percentage of respondents who categorically disagreed (mark 1) or firmly agreed (mark 5) with
the given statement, and the average scores
Opinions Do not agree at all (1)
%
Firmly agree (5)
% Average score Charity is necessary because the state
cannot solve all the problems. 2.7 28.9 3.92 Charity is useful because it can alleviate
social problems. 1.1 22.6 3.91 People are happy to promote public
purposes. 4.7 10.9 3.32
Who is slightly more affluent than others
has to help the people in need. 5.0 11.7 3.31 It is a moral obligation to help the poor. 1.8 26.2 3.88 To help children, elderly and handicapped
people is a moral obligation. 0.4 53.0 4.47 People are happy too help the refugees. 1.5 20.5 3.78
The state and local governments should
help the people in need. 4.4 19.7 3.58 Local governments are competent in
solving community problems, private
citizens cannot do too much. 7.6 7.6 3.06 The really rich have to help the poor. 10.0 13.7 3.04 Society can rely on believers and churches
in solving public problems. 6.2 21.8 3.54 Good families don't need support from
outside. 5.7 12.4 3.28
Charity cannot solve social problems if the donees don't make efforts to solve
their own problems. 11.1 15.1 3.21 Only the decent poor merit support. 9.7 13.0 3.15 I would need support myself, I cannot
help others. 24.5 2.9 2.27
I have family problems and don't have
time to help others. 25.6 1.6 2.12
Table 8.28
Opinion of people who neither gave nor volunteered about giving and volunteering:
the percentage of respondents who categorically disagreed (mark 1) or firmly agreed (mark 5) with the given statement, and the average scores
Opinions Do not agree at all (1)
%
Firmly agree (5)
% Average score Charity is necessary because the state
cannot solve all the problems. 2.6 16.5 3.73 Charity is useful because it can alleviate
social problems. 2.0 12.8 3.72 People are happy to promote public
purposes. 4.7 5.2 3.12
Who is slightly more affluent than others
has to help the people in need. 3.9 7.8 3.24 It is a moral obligation to help the poor. 2.1 14.7 3.65 To help children, elderly and handicapped
people is a moral obligation. 0.6 32.7 4.23 To help refugees is a moral obligation. 2.0 12.2 3.63 The state and local governments should
help the people in need. 1.2 23.6 3.95 Local governments are competent in
solving community problems, private
citizens cannot do too much. 3.0 8.6 3.45 The really rich have to help the poor. 4.3 16.1 3.45 Society can rely on believers and churches
in solving public problems. 4.6 6.4 3.13 Good families don't need support from
outside. 3.2 9.8 3.42
Charity cannot solve social problems if the donees don't make efforts to solve
their own problems. 6.0 11.2 3.34 Only the decent poor merit support. 3.9 10.4 3.35 I would need support myself, I cannot
help others. 4.8 21.7 3.55
I have family problems and don't have
time to help others. 8.4 11.0 3.09
Table 8.29
Opinions about the nonprofit organizations (average scores)
Opinions about nonprofit organizations In-kind Cash
Volunteers Not helping contributors
Foundations serve public purposes
efficiently. 3.78 3.83 3.77 3.71 Most of the foundations are tax shelters,
they don't address public problems. 2.88 2.88 2.79 3.17 Foundations and voluntary associations
deal with politics instead of serving
public interest. 2.88 2.89 2.81 3.19
50
Voluntary associations and churches can
mobilize people. 3.65 3.81 3.78 3.44