Response to Sun.

When a staff member at NASW Press called to ask whether I would like to respond to a critique of my article, "Women and Human Services Giving" (January 2000, pp. 27-38), I was excited. I hoped that the invitation would be an opportunity to engage in a broader discussion on a very important and timely topic: the role of philanthropy in U.S. social welfare policy. This was precisely the reason that I was invited by President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton to participate in the first White House Conference on Philanthropy, which was held in October of last year. After reading the critique, I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed. Instead of a substantive discussion of where women's philanthropy fits in the larger context of U.S. social welfare policy, Dr. Sun attempted to find some weakness in my statistical analysis, a critique that a close reading of the article would have precluded. Although this focus may get a self-appointed quantitative expert into the leading journal in the social work profession, it is just the sort of academic chatter that serious professionals in the field find a waste of time. Let me deal with the pettiness, then I'll return to the more important discussion. Although acknowledging the article's "thorough descriptions and discussion regarding the issue's importance, historical background, past research, and method," Dr. Sun goes on to claim that I "neither observed nor explained why there was such a large discrepancy" between the total sample of 2,719 people and the 293 cases selected as part of the logistic regression analysis. Not so. A more than superficial reading of my "Method" section explains that "[my] analysis used only those cases in which the respondents indicated that they were the household member most involved in deciding to which charities to give" (p. 31). In a study of factors associated with charitable giving, I considered it best to use those cases most directly involved with the charitable decision. This approach necessarily removed many less-involved cases from analysis. In addition, Table 3 on page 33 shows that 16 independent variables were used in the logistic regression model. During the analysis, cases with missing information on any of these 16 independent variables or the dependent variable were omitted. Dr. Sun also is disturbed by my discussion of empowerment and commitment to charitable organizations in relation to women's giving. She stated that "the variables of empowerment and organizational commitment are not significant predictors, according to the logistic regression model." Very observant; I agree and never claimed otherwise. To further this nonexistent debate, Dr. Sun then quotes me while conveniently leaving out several important words from the quote: First,... an important motivation for women donors indicated in this [study] ... is a concern for empowerment (p. 34). A thorough and fair reading of my "Implications" section includes the following: "The results of this analysis indicate that people giving to human services, in contrast to those who do not, are more likely to be women. They are also more likely to be white, have a higher income, and volunteer in human services. In addition, given the previously discussed findings of earlier qualitative studies (Shaw & Taylor, 1995; Sublett, 1993) a nd the chi-square results of this study, there is evidence that women are more committed to the role of charitable organizations in society and believe that they have the power to improve the welfare of others. [As] stated, an important motivation for women donors indicated in this and the earlier qualitative studies (Shaw & Taylor, 1995) is a concern for empowerment" (p. 34). Notice that I am careful to begin this discussion stating that "there is evidence" of the importance of organizational commitment and empowerment for women donors and reference earlier qualitative studies and my chi-square results. …