Kidist Yasin

Introduction

Across sub-Saharan Africa, higher education institutions (HEIs) are working to build more sustainable funding models. Public funding remains essential, but it is increasingly insufficient to meet the growing demands of student support, research, infrastructure, and institutional development. In response, many institutions are investing more deliberately in fundraising.

There is, however, an important starting point that is often overlooked: In many African communities, people are already giving. They are simply not always giving to institutions.

My research examined this broader landscape of giving through interviews with 34 Ethiopian donors, with some living in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia, and others in Indianapolis in the United States. The study focused on the range of giving behaviors people practice, both formal and informal, and on the factors that shape those behaviors, such as the role of family upbringing, religious beliefs, social norms, and the broader context in which individuals live.

The findings point to an existing culture of generosity and an opportunity for institutions to better align their fundraising approaches with how people already give.

1. How giving is practiced in the communities studied
   This study examined both formal giving, such as contributions to nonprofit organizations and organized initiatives, and informal giving, which includes direct support to individuals through money, time, resources, care, or participation in mutual support networks.
   
   A consistent pattern emerged: While many individuals interviewed had engaged in formal giving at different points in their lives, every donor reported engaging in informal giving. Most described it as their primary way of helping others. This finding suggests that formal and informal giving are not separate systems. Rather, they operate alongside each other, with informal giving playing a dominant role in everyday practice.
2. A preference for informal giving
   When asked which form of giving they practiced more often, donors consistently pointed to informal giving, including to individuals who were actively involved in formal organizations. Notably, even those who had founded nonprofit organizations or were actively engaged in formal giving through donations or volunteering said they gave more often through informal channels.
   
   The top three explanations for the preference for informal giving were as follows:
   • Concerns about trust and organizational effectiveness
     Many donors expressed uncertainty about how contributions to formal organizations are used. Questions about administrative costs, transparency, and impact led some to reduce or withdraw their formal giving. Informal giving, by contrast, allowed them to see directly where their support was going.
   • Influence of social norms
     Giving was described as part of everyday social life. Donors spoke of frequent and direct requests from family members, neighbors, and community networks. Responding to these requests was understood as part of a person’s social responsibility. These personal appeals often carried more weight than institutional fundraising efforts.
   • Importance of immediacy and visible impact
     Informal giving was seen as more direct and more meaningful. Donors valued being able to respond quickly and to observe the results of their support. This visibility reinforced their continued engagement in informal giving. Taken together, these factors help explain why informal giving is not only widespread but often preferred.
3. Influence of culture, faith, and lived experience
   The study found that giving behavior – formal and informal – did not emerge in isolation. It was shaped over time by family upbringing, religious teachings, cultural practices, and lived experiences. Donors frequently described learning to give from their parents. Many grew up in environments where helping others was expected and modeled consistently. Religious beliefs also played a central role, framing giving as both a moral obligation and spiritual practice.
   
   Context further shaped these behaviors. Donors living in the diaspora described supporting individuals and communities in Ethiopia, particularly in areas such as education, health, and family support. At the same time, they often supported fellow immigrants in their local communities. Living across contexts expanded both the scope of need and the forms of response.
   
   Across all cases, giving was closely tied to relationships, values, and a sense of belonging.
4. Education as one of the focuses of informal giving
   Education emerged as a key area of support, particularly within informal giving. Many donors, especially those in the diaspora, described regularly supporting students (in their hometown communities) through tuition payments, school fees, and educational materials. This support was almost always directed to individuals rather than to institutions.
   
   This finding points to an important reality: people are already investing in education; they are doing so, however, through relationships rather than through formal institutional channels.

Implications for higher education fundraising in Africa

As African higher education institutions seek more diversified and sustainable funding models, the role of African philanthropy is receiving greater attention, yet our understanding of African philanthropists’ involvement in supporting higher education remains limited and understudied (Kumi, 2024).

The findings from my research point to several practical directions for universities seeking to strengthen and diversify their funding.

• Connecting giving to visible and meaningful outcomes
  Institutions need to connect giving to visible and meaningful outcomes. Donors in this study were already supporting education, but they did so by helping individual students. HEIs can apply this insight by creating structured opportunities that mirror this practice. These opportunities may include student sponsorship programs, named scholarships, and emergency student support funds. When donors can clearly see who benefits from their support, giving becomes more tangible and more compelling.
• Building trust as a core fundraising priority
  HEIs must create trust as a core fundraising priority. Concerns about transparency and the use of funds were a major reason donors reduced or avoided formal giving. HEIs can respond by communicating more clearly about how funds are used, providing simple and consistent updates, and demonstrating the direct impact of contributions. Closing this information gap is essential for building sustained donor confidence.
• Approaching diaspora engagement intentionally
  HEIs should approach diaspora engagement intentionally. Diaspora members interviewed in this study were already supporting students in their hometown communities in Ethiopia, including university students as well as primary and secondary school students, through direct assistance with educational expenses, personal hygiene needs, and other basic personal expenses. HEIs can create pathways that allow this support to flow through institutional channels without losing its personalized character. Diaspora scholarship funds, alumni chapters, and targeted campaigns focused on student support are practical entry points.
• Leveraging collective giving traditions that already exist
  HEIs can draw from collective giving traditions that already exist within African communities. Practices grounded in mutual support and shared responsibility can be reflected in institutional mechanisms, such as alumni giving circles or community-based scholarship funds. These approaches align more closely with how giving is experienced and practiced in everyday life.

Further Readings:

• Yasin, K. I. (2024). Toward an inclusive landscape of informal and formal giving behavior: With voices from Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) and Indiana (USA) (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University).
• Kumi, E. (2024). A literature review of African philanthropy and higher education in Africa. Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.
• Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.
• McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96(4), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.690
• Wiepking, P. (2020). The global study of philanthropic behavior. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(2), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00279-6
• Wilkinson-Maposa, S., Fowler, A., Oliver-Evans, C., & Mulenga, C. F. (2005). The poor philanthropist. University of Cape Town–Graduate School of Business.
• Fowler, A., & Mati, J. (2019). African gifting: Pluralising the concept of philanthropy. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 724–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-00079-z

Author Bio

Kidist Yasin, Ph.D., is a philanthropy scholar, researcher, and practitioner who earned her Ph.D. in Philanthropic Studies from the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy in 2024. She works as a fundraising consultant and researcher specializing in global philanthropy, donor behavior, and diversified and sustainable fundraising strategies. Her research examines formal and informal giving across contexts, ultra-high-net-worth philanthropy, and diaspora giving.